Policy Sciences最新文献

Theories of the policy process understand the dynamics of policymaking as the result of the interaction of structural and agency variables. While these theories tend to conceptualize structural variables in a careful manner, agency (i.e. the actions of individual agents, like policy entrepreneurs, policy leaders, policy brokers, and policy experts) is left as a residual piece in the puzzle of the causality of change and stability. This treatment of agency leaves room for conceptual overlaps, analytical confusion and empirical shortcomings that can complicate the life of the empirical researcher and, most importantly, hinder the ability of theories of the policy process to fully address the drivers of variation in policy dynamics. Drawing on Merton’s concept of function, this article presents a novel theorization of agency in the policy process. We start from the assumption that agency functions are a necessary component through which policy dynamics evolve. We then theorise that agency can fulfil four main functions – steering, innovation, intermediation and intelligence – that need to be performed, by individual agents, in any policy process through four patterns of action – leadership, entrepreneurship, brokerage and knowledge accumulation – and we provide a roadmap for operationalising and measuring these concepts. We then demonstrate what can be achieved in terms of analytical clarity and potential theoretical leverage by applying this novel conceptualisation to two major policy process theories: the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF).

This paper analyses policy integration in the field of urban policies. Specifically, the policy framework on sustainable urban development promoted by various international organisations is analysed as an exemplar combining multi-sectoriality in its substantive dimension (policy goals in different policy subsystems) and integration in its procedural dimension (integration between policy actions across policy subsystems involved). It is assumed that urban policies often take the form of multi-level policy mixes, and that integration involves a process of collective action between different policy subsystems. Based on the literature on policy integration and actor-centred institutionalism frameworks, it is postulated that in the absence of clear indications about the integrated strategy and policy integration capacities in the policy frame, the collective action dilemmas that this strategy entails in local projects will prevail, reducing the possibility of policy integration. The implementation of the urban dimension of the European Union's cohesion policy in Spain between 1994 and 2013 is analysed a total of 82 urban projects, where the integrated strategy is a central element but understood as multi-sectorial objectives rather than a complementarity between policy subsystems. Empirical results show a high level of diversity of objectives across policy sectors and a very low level of integration; specifically, a curvilinear pattern in the relationship between these two aspects. The results highlight the need to include policy instruments and capacities in the policy frame to address the collective action dilemmas that policy integration implies, especially if the policy frame calls for a broad multi-sectorial agenda across different policy subsystems.

Despite the recognition that policy evaluations are inherently normative as they are shaped by political and social values, justice is rarely addressed systematically in policy evaluation practice or research. By overlooking structural inequities and failing to scrutinize power dynamics, this omission risks hindering accountability, legitimizing injustice, and inhibiting policy learning. To help bridge this gap, we build on the policy success heuristic, which is a multidimensional approach for assessing programmatic, process, and political outcomes of public policy. Drawing on the philosophical literature on justice, we link three prominent categories-distributive, procedural, and recognition justice-with the dimensions of policy success. Based on this linkage, we propose a reflective framework that uniquely integrates justice principles into each dimension of the policy success heuristic. The framework can be applied ex-ante or ex-post to assess whether a policy is, or is likely to be, not only successful but also just, contributing to navigating the is/ought distinction at the heart of policy evaluation.

Public policymaking on issues requiring ambitious yet socially and economically costly action can face backlash from target groups and wider audiences, threatening policy adoption and durability. As an abrupt negative reaction to policy action, backlash is challenging to study and requires distinctive analytical approaches. This is especially pressing for climate change mitigation policy, which faces growing yet dispersed empirical experiences of backlash. We develop a framework to study the socio-political conditions (economic, cultural, practical) under which backlash to climate policy occurs to enable comparative empirical analysis. We posit that backlash arises from significant incongruence between policy action and its socio-political context across one or more of these dimensions. We illustrate this approach using three cases of backlash to carbon pricing policy in Canada, France, and Mexico, revealing different ways in which incongruence can arise. Our analysis highlights the need for configurational explanations and a policy-in-context perspective when studying contentious reactions to policy action.

Many of today's challenges, such as climate change, war, or health crises, are highly interlinked and intertwined. Actors in the public discourse sometimes use the term "polycrisis" to describe this "causal entanglement of crises". This article investigates whether this entanglement is visible in the media discourse and whether political actors strategically (mis-)use simultaneous and overlapping crises to influence policymaking in favor of their policy beliefs and preferences. Specifically, it studies how the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 influenced the climate discourse at that time and whether and how political actors included the pandemic as "narrative strategy" to advocate their climate policy beliefs and preferences. To answer this question, this article scrutinizes the climate media discourse in 2020 in Germany and Switzerland and employs a logistic regression model combined with a descriptive and qualitative analysis of the climate discourse in the two countries. Our results show that in both countries primarily pro-environment actors use COVID-19-related arguments as narrative strategy to increase public attention for the need of a more ambitious climate policy, while pro-economy actors follow a strategy of decreasing the salience of the climate issue (i.e., not linking the issues), potentially reducing public pressure for more ambitious climate mitigation.

Classic studies of 'perfect' policymaking use an ideal-type to identify and reflect on policymaking in the real world. I use this approach to review studies that seek policy coherence, show how policy theory insights help to identify real-world dynamics, and prompt debate on what would constitute perfection. The ideal-type 'perfect policy coherence' initially helps to identify barriers to policymaking integration and the production and delivery of a coherent policy mix. It has the following elements. There is high and consistent attention to a problem, and solving that problem is the highest strategic priority. There are effective means to produce evidence-informed policy and manage competing beliefs and interests. There is a perfect means to coordinate policy implementation. The strategy works as intended. There are clear and agreed measures of success, and meeting targets signals substantive progress. The policy strategy and mix are credible and durable. I use the ideal-type to show that fragmentation and incoherence are inevitable in the real world. I argue that this 'coherence gap' - between ideal-type and real-world policymaking - is not all bad, then compare competing - 'top down' and 'bottom up' - ways to seek integration and coherence.

Industrial policy has regained political attention due to the challenges associated with global market integration, technological changes, and the need for sustainable transformation. However, the lack of a consistent understanding of industrial policy hampers systematic comparisons. This paper develops a novel concept of industrial policy portfolios that captures different dimensions of industrial policy outputs across countries and over time. We illustrate this approach by comparing the policy dynamics in the United States and Germany over the last four decades and show that despite similar dynamics of policy growth, the countries display pronounced variation in the areas and instruments they prioritized.

This review commentary offers reflections on some of the key themes of Douglas Torgerson’s refreshing, perceptive and timely study of the work of Harold Lasswell, The Policy Sciences of Harold Lasswell: Contextual Orientation and the Critical Dimension. The commentary attempts to connect those themes to our present with the aim of making a very small contribution to the work demanded by the challenge posed by Torgerson in the final pages of his book – the pursuit of a ‘strategic developmental construct’ inspired by ‘the critical agenda’. To that end, the commentary examines ideas of the future instantiated in the recent United Nations ‘Summit of the Future’, and concludes by reflecting on possible political risks posed by different styles of hermeneutic method.

In The Policy Sciences of Harold Lasswell, Douglas Torgerson offers a timely interpretation of Harold Lasswell as a progenitor of critical policy studies and champion of radical democracy. In this essay, we consider several concepts central to Torgerson’s interpretation of Lasswell, including “latent,” “manifest,” and “context,” in order to call attention to the hermeneutic labor required to produce any image of a “stable” Lasswell. We investigate two lesser-known aspects of Lasswell’s career – his teaching at the Chicago Workers School and his NBC radio program Human Nature in Action – to illustrate the degree to which Lasswell’s democratic commitments often blended liberal and elitist tendencies, in sometimes uneasy fashion. We ultimately suggest that despite (or perhaps because of) Lasswell’s irreducible complexities, if not inconsistencies, he remains uniquely relevant to understanding our current era in which propaganda and insecurity remain central concerns.

In the Policy Sciences of Harold Lasswell, Douglas Torgerson asks an important question–whether the logic of policy sciences can inspire democratic hope for social betterment. His response is refreshing and psychoanalytically-informed optimism, whereas a jurisprudential detour of the NHS’s legacy as the most important application of policy sciences in another discipline calls for agnosticism. Revisiting the application of policy sciences in international law suggests that the very logic of policy sciences, under the influence of a defective form of naturalism, disables its potential for inclusive democracy.