Policy Sciences最新文献

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.

Addressing current socio-economic crises strains public budgets and may threaten fiscal sustainability. Particularly in the welfare sector, where high expenditures meet poor controllability, efficient resource usage is essential to ensure future governments’ capability to act while alleviating current problems. Consequently, this paper asks: why are some countries more efficient in translating social expenditure into welfare outcomes? To answer this question, it is argued that efficiency is a matter of institutional structures and their vertical policy-process integration (VPI): efficiency depends on institutional structures’ capability to (1) ensure policymakers’ responsibility and to (2) provide coordinated feedback, thus pushing for considerate and informed resource use. Analysing the effect of VPI on the relationship between welfare efforts and social outcomes in 21 OECD countries over three decades, the results show that VPI can not only turn ‘less’ into ‘more’, but it also compensates for performance losses in the face of spending cuts.

The United States faces multiple political challenges to achieving the rapid cuts in carbon emissions called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among these are the long-standing issue of partisan polarization and the newly emerging problem of climate doom and defeatism. These challenges are not only barriers to agenda-setting and enactment, but can also threaten the durability of policies over time. This study uses a survey experiment from a nationally representative sample (n = 1760) to examine the impact of partisan cues and fatalistic rhetoric on support for the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. We find that Republicans and Independents exposed to Democratic Party cues expressed less support for the IRA. We also find that Independents respondents exposed to a fatalistic message had reduced support for the IRA. These findings underscore the importance of framing in the post-enactment period and suggest that the IRA may be vulnerable to retrenchment or reversal.

The deepening integration of social-technical systems creates immensely complex environments, creating increasingly uncertain and unpredictable circumstances. Given this context, policymakers have been encouraged to draw on complexity science-informed approaches in policymaking to help grapple with and manage the mounting complexity of the world. For nearly eighty years, complexity-informed approaches have been promising to change how our complex systems are understood and managed, ultimately assisting in better policymaking. Despite the potential of complexity science, in practice, its use often remains limited to a few specialised domains and has not become part and parcel of the mainstream policy debate. To understand why this might be the case, we question why complexity science remains nascent and not integrated into the core of policymaking. Specifically, we ask what the non-technical challenges and barriers are preventing the adoption of complexity science into policymaking. To address this question, we conducted an extensive literature review. We collected the scattered fragments of text that discussed the non-technical challenges related to the use of complexity science in policymaking and stitched these fragments into a structured framework by synthesising our findings. Our framework consists of three thematic groupings of the non-technical challenges: (a) management, cost, and adoption challenges; (b) limited trust, communication, and acceptance; and (c) ethical barriers. For each broad challenge identified, we propose a mitigation strategy to facilitate the adoption of complexity science into policymaking. We conclude with a call for action to integrate complexity science into policymaking further.

Catastrophic wildfire is an increasingly familiar phenomenon on multiple continents. In the United States, concerns about uncontrolled, destructive wildfire have prompted some major insurance carriers to cease writing new policies or to non-renew existing policies. These trends affect not only policyholders, but also, vulnerable communities that already face multiple obstacles to securing property or renters insurance. This study reviews the social and behavioral sciences literatures on wildfire risk in the United States and insurance protection by homeowners. Three categories of research emerge from the review, namely, homeowner as rational actor, wildfire governance and risk management, and wildfire and social equity. There is abundant scholarship on determinants of homeowner decisions to manage wildfire risk by self-protecting or by purchasing insurance, but comparatively little research on the policy implications of shrinking markets for insurance. Policy research on the needs of underinsured and uninsured populations is also relatively undeveloped. Overlaying Lasswell’s social process framework on the three dominant research themes, we find not only divergent research questions, models, and methods, but also, important differences in which stakeholders and stakeholder values are considered. There are opportunities for the different literatures to learn from one another, but also, to sharpen their focus on insurance as a scarce and uncertain resource amid climate change and as property development continues to expand in wildfire-prone areas.

Scholars may be diversely engaged in boundary-crossing work, either staying more confined in academic settings, or reaching out to the policy world. Despite growing theoretical attention, there is little empirical knowledge on the extent to which scholars indeed engage in boundary-crossing activities, and the conditions that foster or jeopardize this. We use original survey data from European political scientists to investigate how frequently they ‘travel’ to the policy world, what patterns of engagement are visible, and how these are determined. The article introduces a typology capturing different boundary-crossing profiles and shows that political scientists are rather frequent travelers across the border between academia and the policy world. Yet, individual characteristics matter. Having (had) a position outside of academia has an especially strong effect on the likelihood of boundary-crossing. Our results also reveal that not every scholar has the same chance to be involved, depending on gender or seniority.