Policy Sciences最新文献

This article examines the relationship between policy experiments, a form of policy innovation, and policy change. Despite a great deal of scholarship on experiments, little is known about how experiments lead to change. For example, what factors make change more likely? How can experimentation best be governed so as to lead to policy change? These questions are answered using data from a case study of 45 policy experiments in Canadian arts and cultural policy. The article highlight six factors crucial to enabling mainstreaming and scaling in this case: leadership, the scope of experiments, congruence with existing policy priorities, alignment with an existing modernization program, expanded relationships and stakeholder collaboration, and creative space. Each of these factors is linked to one or more of McFadgen’s (Ecol Soc 24:30, 2019) four pathways to policy change via policy experiments. The article’s findings have broader implications for the study and understanding of how to achieve change in risk-averse policy settings.

We explore emerging work around the relational dimensions of public policy. What constitutes a relational frame of analysis is a broad terrain, but some general tenets characterize these approaches, including the foregrounding of relationships between policy actors along with the idea that these relationships are, at least in part, constitutive of the role and identity of these actors. In fact, relationality has long been a feature of studies on policy processes and implementation. More recent scholarship in policy and public administration attempts to more systematically theorize and analyze relationality. This draws from the “relational turn” in sociology and other social sciences. After reviewing the relevant literature on relationality, we offer several propositions on the immediate relevance of the concept of relationality for policy studies. Short of accepting strong ontological and teleological claims regarding relationality and society found in the broader literature, there nevertheless is value in the systematic exploration of the relational dimensions of public policy—i.e., as a mode of description of the practice of policy in the everyday, and as a rich, new lens by which to understand institutions in society. While previous policy literature will acknowledge the relevance of the relational in policy life, there has yet to be a concerted effort to foreground relationship and relationality so as to be the primary focus of analysis.

Earlier conceptual studies suggest that policy bubbles differ from the more common pattern of policy overreaction due to their sustained, self-reinforcing nature, which results in prolonged overinvestment. Although the best way to analyze this phenomenon is through rigorous empirical investigation, such future endeavors require a guiding theory. This article lays the groundwork for a potential theory of policy bubbles by differentiating between micro-level causes, such as cognitive, emotional, and social network factors influencing individual behavior (e.g., whether a person’s friends are connected to one another), and macro-level causes, including institutional and ideational factors, as well as social network dynamics at the aggregate level, such as links density or segregation patterns. A similar distinction is made here between micro- and macro-level positive feedback processes, which may evolve independently, interact with one another, and exhaust themselves during the emergence of policy bubbles and in the lock-in stage. This stage is conceived here as a prolonged conflict between policy entrepreneurs who advance distorted or accurate policy images. This conflict at times involves the use of sheer power in authoritarian regimes, while in democratic ones it often entails strategic action by policy entrepreneurs via mutual reinforcement between policy overproduction and various forms of capture—constitutional, technological, cultural, and informational. These mechanisms are used by policy entrepreneurs to block bureaucratic drift, coalition drift, and drift of accountability forums that may lead to a decline in policy overproduction. If this theory results in conclusions that offer sufficient generalizations, it may have a place alongside the major theories of the policy process.

This research note explores how policymaking can manage the spill-over effects of digital and social infrastructures to support social cohesion, particularly in "left-behind places" (LBPs). While digitalization is often seen as a tool to reduce regional disparities, its implementation frequently neglects the critical role of social infrastructure, risking the reinforcement of existing inequalities. By synthesizing insights from urban development, governance, and digital inclusion literature, this research develops a conceptual policy-infrastructure framework that categorizes spatial and aspatial interventions. Examples such as digital health platforms and public libraries highlight the need to balance standardized digital solutions with localized, context-sensitive strategies. The findings emphasize the importance of flexible, participatory policymaking and stakeholder coordination to align digital initiatives with social infrastructure, fostering equitable and inclusive development across diverse regions.

The use of mini-publics to enable some citizens to feed policy recommendations into public policy processes is gaining popularity. However, assessing whether and to what extent mini-publics have policy impact is extremely challenging due to the complexity of policy processes. We make the case for a new approach to analysing mini-public policy impact with respect to an analysis of the journeys made by each mini-public recommendation, with a view to developing a better understanding of their influence within the specific policy context in which they operate. We propose that employing a ‘filtration’ lens enables a consideration of not only which recommendations are accepted, rejected or ignored by public authorities, but whether they are reconceptualised. We develop a framework that enables the classification of the recommendations and their policy journeys and apply it to the Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care, commissioned by select committees in the House of Commons. Through analysis of the grey literature around the case we were able to establish the type of journey each recommendation had undergone. This provided us with nuanced analysis of what was filtered out, where, how, by whom, and why. We therefore believe the framework is a significant addition to the toolkit of those researching mini-publics.

This study employs Cultural Theory to study perceptions and conflicting worldviews of key actor groups in EU forest policy. Forests are central to different human demands for ecosystem services such as biomass, biodiversity, and climate mitigation. Tradeoffs occur between these ecosystem services, involving the necessity to set priorities. Related to increasing uncertainties inter alia caused by climate change, polarized perspectives prevail in the multi-level EU policy system regarding which evidence, whose attribution, and what optimal governance and management strategies are to be chosen for forests. At the core of these perspectives lie conflicting worldviews related to cultural biases of what is real and right. Through qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with a diverse set of forest policy actors from the EU and member state level, the research delves into their perceptions of EU forest policy, including perceived problems, preferred solutions, and assigned responsibilities, using a Cultural Theory lens. Our analysis distinguishes three groups of actors aligned with distinct elements of Cultural Theory worldviews while acknowledging the nuanced nature of these divisions. Our analysis invites readers to navigate the complexities of EU forest policy, unraveling worldviews and actor perspectives in pursuing informed policy decisions, and may eventually facilitate improved dialogue among actors considering these heterogeneous worldviews.

The production of state legibility has been a prolific subject of study. However, most works have not paid much attention to the quotidian labor of the street-level bureaucrats that implement legibility projects at a local level. The aim of this article is to explore the implementation of a social registry system at a local level to understand how frontline workers make the population legible. Instead of taking legibility as an object of evaluation or critique, we pay close attention to the inner workings of bureaucracies at the instances in which the sociomaterial conditions of the population are translated into data. Drawing from qualitative research in Peruvian municipalities, we describe the operations of an algorithmic system that classifies the population for the distribution of welfare. We observed how under-resourced bureaucrats were constrained by regulations and technologies of the system. Paradoxically, to make the system work for their local realities, the bureaucrats had to bend the rules and find workarounds. From this perspective, the making of legibility looks less like a top-down exercise of bureaucratic compliance or a story of domination over the population. Instead, we find actors attempting to maintain a delicate balance between inadequate legal rules, scarce resources, and sociopolitical demands.