Policy Sciences最新文献

Grand sustainability challenges span multiple sectors and fields of policymaking. Novel technologies that respond to these challenges may trigger the emergence of new policy subsystems at the intersection of established sectors. We develop a framework that addresses the complexities of ‘multi-system settings.’ Empirically, we explore belief and coalition formation in the nascent policy subsystem around hydrogen technologies in Germany, which emerges at the intersection of electricity, transport, heating, and industry and is characterised by a broad range of actors from different sectoral backgrounds. We find two coalitions: a rather unusual coalition of actors from industry, NGOs, and research institutes as well as an expectable coalition of gas and heat sector actors. Actors disagree over production, application, and import standards for hydrogen. However, there is widespread support for hydrogen and for a strong role of the state across almost all actors. We explain our findings by combining insights from the advocacy coalition framework and politics of transitions: Belief and coalition formation in a nascent subsystem are influenced by sectoral backgrounds of actors, technology characteristics, as well as trust and former contacts. Our study contributes to a better understanding of early stages of coalition formation in a multi-system setting.

In Canada, in the early 2000s, the decriminalization of cannabis for recreational use seemed imminent. Between 2003 and 2005, three government decriminalization bills were introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, but none were adopted, and decriminalization efforts were abandoned. Subsequently, Canada went beyond decriminalization and legalized recreational cannabis in 2018. This paper examines why the Canadian decriminalization efforts failed, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and ACF policy change theory. Three ACF-based hypotheses to explain the failed reform attempts are developed and investigated, but none are empirically supported. A fourth hypothesis is developed using information processing insights from Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) but adapted to the ACF. This hypothesis is empirically supported showing that Canada’s decriminalization efforts failed, despite a supportive advocacy coalition, favourable conditions in the cannabis policy subsystem and favourable conditions in the Canadian political system, because its systemic advocates did not give it priority relative to other issues from other subsystems. This finding has implications for ACF policy change theory, identifying a necessary condition for major policy change that has been potentially overlooked, and illustrates the potential for cross-fertilization between PET and ACF theories of policy change.

This paper aims to understand coalition building between national and international actors in the context of an emerging subsystem. In applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework to the case of Uruguay, where a new field of social policy – the National Care System – was introduced in 2015 after a process involving different national actors from academia, civil society, politics, and administration, but also United Nations agencies, the paper explores the role of these international organizations in coalition building, and examines how a dominant coalition of national and international actors shaped the development of the new system. Using interview data and documents, the findings suggest that the involvement of international organizations in the coalition was based on shared beliefs and personal and institutional relationships. While powerful opposing coalitions were absent due to the nascent nature of the subsystem, the dominant coalition was able to influence the policy’s introduction based on their beliefs regarding gender equality and rights.

Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) describes policy change as occurring mostly through incremental movements with infrequent periods of dramatic change. An impressive body of empirical literature relating to budgeting supports this view, but virtually all empirical tests have focused on examining distributions of annual changes, thus nullifying chronology. In this article, we focus on the time element. Using the same databases as previously used in canonical PET studies, we explore multi-year trends, not only annual observations. For our analyses, we identify directional series of changes (while allowing for one-year changes in direction if these are immediately offset in the following year) on a U.S. budget distribution dataset covering the period of 1947 through 2014, with 60 categories of spending consistently defined over time and adjusted for inflation. We then assess the robustness of the PET findings when incorporating a longer time units of trending series of annual changes into the analysis. We find that almost 65% of changes occur in series of 4 years or more. Nonetheless, the signature PET literature pattern of high kurtosis is equally present in these series as well as in shorter series. Moreover, within growing and trending series, we find that 21% of these series generate 80% of positive budget change. Within these series, we identify a small group of “super-trends” that account for a large share of the overall change. We conclude that expanding methodologies for the study of budgetary change to incorporate longer-term dynamics helps to better understand policy change, but such findings remain consistent with the PET perspective.

Since the 1980’s, the growing involvement of private consultancy firms in the public sector worldwide has instigated concerns about the outsourcing of public policy advising to market-driven actors. Although these firms participate in spreading policy ideas, their roles have not received sustained attention, despite being observed by a few scholars. Against this background, the aim of this paper is threefold. First, from established policy concepts relating to policy diffusion, we identify the potential roles that consultancy firms may take on in spreading policy ideas. Second, we use a systematic literature review to collect and distil what is currently known about what different roles consultancy firms fulfil, and what kinds of tensions arise in their interactions with both clients and other actors. Third, we draft an agenda for future research on consultancy firms’ impact in governance processes. To focus our study, our review hones in on environmental governance, more specifically water governance, a significant area of activity for such firms where they play an important in-between role in providing policy ideas. We found indications that consultancy firms possess six types of capabilities (trusted facilitators, reactors to environmental policies, shapers of environmental policies, market drivers, interest navigators, and managers of public participation), and face various dilemmas around biases, decontextualized global practices, market interests, and manipulative practices. We conclude that more attention should be given to empirically refining capabilities involved in shaping policies and markets and to further highlighting how consultancy firms impact the diffusion of governance ideas in and beyond the water and environmental sectors.

This article proposes an integration of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) with prospect theory to investigate how the status quo and policy change are recounted in public debates. By integrating insights from prospect theory into the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), we investigate narratives in the policy domain of farm animal welfare, which is characterized by a strong polarization of actor coalitions. We compare public debates in France and Germany between 2020 and 2021. Our analysis shows that the NPF’s analytical strength is enhanced by integrating the distinction between status quo and policy change in narrative elements. This distinction enables further empirical nuancing of actors’ narrative communication, and in combination with insights from prospect theory, it allows for new conjectures about actors’ use of narrative strategies such as the devil shift and the angel shift. In addition to the theoretical contribution, we shed light on debates surrounding farm animal welfare in Western Europe: Both animal welfare and agricultural coalitions are unsatisfied with the status quo, but they promote policy change of different kinds.

Path-dependency theory says that complex systems, such as health systems, are shaped by prior conditions and decisions, and are resistant to change. As a result, major policy changes, such as health system reform, are often only possible in policy windows—moments of transition or contextual crisis that re-balance social power dynamics and enable the consideration of new policy ideas. However, even in policy windows there can be resistance to change. In this paper, we consider the role of ideas in constraining change. We draw on political science theory on the dynamic relationship between foreground ideas (policy programmes and frames) and background ideas (deeply held collective cognitive and normative beliefs) to better understand how ideas exert influence independently of the contextual conditions that give rise to them or the actors that espouse them. To do so, we examine two apparent policy windows in the South African National Health Insurance policy process. The analysis reveals how ideas can become institutionalised in organisations and procedures (such as policy instruments or provider networks), and in intangible cultural norms—becoming hegemonic and uncontested ideas that shape the attitudes and perspectives of policy actors. In this way, ideas operate as independent variables, constraining change across policy windows. While health policy analysts increasingly recognise the influence of ideational variables in policy processes, they tend to conceptualise ideas as tools actors wield to drive change. This analysis reveals the importance of considering ideas (values, norms, and beliefs) as persistent features of the policy-making context that constrain actors.

Public policy and administration debates typically assume that ICT tools, including social networking services (SNS), increase the amount of information that is communicated and thus harnessed for policymaking processes. At the same time, behavioral approaches point to the potentially detrimental effects of social media stress resulting from an overexposure to SNS. Because systematic research on the individual-level effects of SNS in policy formulation is rare, this paper explores the effect of SNS on the use of policy-relevant information and, thus, on individual political capacities. A moderated mediation analysis was performed based on survey data from central ministerial bureaucracies in Germany, Italy, and Norway, considering not only the amount of information utilized in legislative drafting but also the variability and concentration of the information sources. The results indicate that SNS positively relate to policy officials’ information use, which, in turn, increases their self-reported political capacities. However, the positive relationship between SNS and both the amount and the variability of information use was found to be diminished when levels of social media stress are high rather than low. The conclusions discuss the implications for civil servants and policymaking.

A robust body of research using the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) has explored the effect of external messages on individual affective responses and behavior, typically at a single point in time. Missing from this micro-level analysis is a careful assessment of the ways in which individuals process information, whether their internal cognitions are communicated in narrative structure, and what the durability of any narrative structure is over time. We address this gap by examining (1) the extent to which individuals recall “memorable messages” in narrative form (e.g., the use of characters and morals) and with what content (e.g., who is cast in these character roles) and (2) whether individuals’ narrative form and content change across time. Memorable messages are pieces of information that are remembered for an extended period of time. We draw on data derived from a multi-wave panel survey of residents in six U.S. states (Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Washington) during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents were asked to recall a memorable message, anything they heard or read that has shaped how they think about the risk of COVID-19. We find that participants articulate recalled memorable messages in narrative form about two-thirds of the time, consistent with how the NPF expects homo narrans to make sense of complex information. However, narratives containing morals are articulated less frequently than those using characters alone. Additionally, individuals’ narrative content changes over time to include new information such as new policy solutions (e.g., mask wearing). Notably, recalled messages lose their narrative form over time.

Since Rein and Schön developed their approach to policy framing analysis in the1990s, a range of approaches to policy framing have emerged to inform our understanding of policy processes. Prior attempts to illuminate the diversity of approaches to framing in public policy have largely “stayed in their lane,” making distinctions in approaches within shared epistemic communities. The aim in this paper is to map different approaches to framing used in policy sciences journals, to articulate what each contributes to the understanding of the policy process, and to provide a heuristic to aid in deciding how to use the diverse approaches in framing analysis and to further the dialogue across different approaches. To develop the heuristic, we manually coded and analyzed 68 articles published between 1997 and 2018 using “frame” or “framing” in their title or abstract from four policy journals: Critical Policy Studies, Journal of European Public Policy, Policy Sciences, and Policy Studies Journal. We identified five approaches, which we label: sensemaking, discourse, contestation, explanatory and institutional. We have found that these approaches do not align with a simple binary between interpretive and positivist but show variation, particularly along the lines of aims, methodology and methods. In the discussion, we suggest that these five approaches raise four key questions that animate framing studies in policy analysis: (1) Do frames influence policies or are policies manifestations of framing? (2) What is the role of frame contestation in policy conflict? (3) How can the study of frames or framing reveal unheard voices? And (4) how do certain frames/framings become dominant? By introducing these questions, we offer a fresh way scholars might discuss frames and framing in the policy sciences across approaches, to highlight the distinct yet complementary ways they illuminate policy processes.