Policy Sciences最新文献

Studies of evidence-based policy have found that research often fails to influence policy-making and identify a number of barriers to research utilization. Less is known about what public administrations do to overcome such barriers. The article draws on a content analysis of 1,159 documents and 13 qualitative interviews to compare how and why evidence standards affect research utilization in two Danish ministries with available evidence, policy analytical capacity, and broad political agreement on key policy goals. The article finds support for the proposition that more exclusive evidence standards in ministries will lead to higher levels of research utilization by showing that average levels of research utilization are higher in the Ministry of Employment than in the Ministry of Children and Education in the period 2016?2021. In active employment policy the adoption an evidence hierarchy and the accumulating evidence in a knowledge bank has interacted with stakeholder support and a continued coordination with the Ministry of Finance to provide economic incentives for policy-makers to adopt evidence-based policies thus stimulating research utilization. Evidence for public education policy, by contrast, has been more contested and the Ministry of Children of Education retains inclusive evidence standards in an attempt to integrate evidencebased and practical knowledge from stakeholders, which has led to lower average levels of utilization in the period.

In 1951, Harold Lasswell defined the ability to clarify value goals as integral to a policy analyst’s job. But graduate education in public policy analysis has paid insufficient attention to the skills needed to investigate and clarify value disputes. In turn, practicing policy analysts don’t have ready access to a set of methods for normative analysis that serves Lasswell’s vision of a contextualized, holistic, and interdisciplinary policy science. I start by describing calls for more emphasis on social equity in policy analysis and explore the complementary relationship of empirical, fact-based analysis and normative, value-driven analysis. I then propose seven competencies that policy analysts should be expected to master. They need to understand how normative issues arise in and adjacent to the classical model of policy analysis. They need to master a vocabulary for normative analysis and understand how humans make moral judgments, recognizing the distinction between moral rationalism and moral intuitionism. To engage in moral rationalism, practitioners need to be able to use the tools of analytic political philosophy. When it comes to moral intuitionism, they need to recognize the emotion-driven foundations of moral judgement and personal values. Finally, policy analysts also need to know where to find the values that are relevant to their analysis. Mastery of these competencies will allow analysts to better serve what Laswell describes as the intelligence needs of policymakers.

Evidence-based policy making (EBPM) has been a key pillar of the better regulation agenda of the European Union. However, the extent to which it has genuinely impacted domestic policy making practices has remained largely unexplored. This study sets out to address this gap by focusing on EBPM adoption in settings with historically weak culture of technocratic rationality. To this end, the article proposes a novel analytical framework combining the concept of Europeanisation with insights from the scholarship on knowledge and evidence utilisation. The framework is then applied to the “least likely” case of Bulgaria and its National Climate and Energy Plan for 2021–2030. The article draws on 26 semi-structured interviews to analyse the use of different types of evidence in the Plan’s formulation. The study finds that genuine adoption of EBPM practices remains relatively low with evidence serving predominantly a perfunctory role. In contrast, instrumental and conceptual uses of evidence remain rare. Still, the findings point at the possibility, albeit limited, for gradual Europeanisation and uptake of evidence-based practices even in highly unfavourable conditions. This can be facilitated by a prolonged exposure to evidence-based practices, targeted EU pressure, the establishment of forums facilitating evidence exchange and the presence of “evidence-friendly” individuals within the civil service.

This article investigates how certainty and timing of evidence introduction impact the uptake of evidence by policy-makers in collective deliberations. Little is known about how experts or researchers should time the introduction of uncertain evidence for policy-makers. With a computational model based on the Hegselmann–Krause opinion dynamics model, we simulate how policy-makers update their opinions in light of new evidence. We illustrate the use of our model with two examples in which timing and certainty matter for policy-making: intelligence analysts scouting potential terrorist activity and food safety inspections of chicken meat. Our computations indicate that evidence should come early to convince policy-makers, regardless of how certain it is. Even if the evidence is quite certain, it will not convince all policy-makers. Next to its substantive contribution, the article also showcases the methodological innovation that agent-based models can bring for a better understanding of the science–policy nexus. The model can be endlessly adapted to generate hypotheses and simulate interactions that cannot be empirically tested.

Policy design approaches currently pay insufficient attention to feedback that occurs during the design process. Addressing this endogenous policy design feedback gap is pressing as policymakers can adopt ‘low-fidelity’ design approaches featuring compressed and iterative feedback-rich design cycles. We argue that within-design feedback can be oriented to the components of policy designs (instruments and objectives) and serve to reinforce or undermine them during the design process. We develop four types of low-fidelity design contingent upon the quality of feedback available to designers and their ability to integrate it into policy design processes: confident iteration and stress testing, advocacy and hacking, tinkering and shots in the dark, or coping. We illustrate the utility of the approach and variation in the types, use, and impacts of within-design feedback and low-fidelity policy design through an examination of the UK’s Universal Credit policy.

Several scholars have observed persistent gaps between policy responses to complex, ambiguous and politicized problems (such as migration, climate change and the recent Covid-19 pandemic) and evidence or ‘facts’. While most existing explanations for this ‘evidence-policy gap’ in the migration policy field focus on knowledge availability and knowledge use by policymakers, this article shifts the focus to processes of knowledge formation, exploring the questions of what counts as ‘evidence’ for migration policymakers and what are the sources of information that shape their understandings of migration policy issues. It does so, by developing a network-centred approach and focusing on elite US policy-makers in the field of irregular and asylum-seeking migration. This ‘heuristic case’ is used to challenge existing explanations of the ‘evidence-policy gap’ and to generate new explanations to be tested in future research. Our findings—based on qualitative and quantitative data collected in 2015–2018 through 57 elite interviews analysed applying social network analysis and qualitative content analysis—challenge scholarly claims about policymakers’ lack of access to evidence about migration. We also challenge claims that migration-related decision-making processes are irrational or merely driven by political interests, showing that policymakers rationally collect information, select sources and attribute different relevance to ‘evidence’ acquired. We instead highlight that knowledge acquisition processes by elite policymakers are decisively shaped by dynamics of trust and perceptions of political and organizational like-mindedness among actors, and that political and ideological factors determine what qualifies as 'evidence' in the first place.

The media’s central role in the policy process has long been recognised, with policy scholars noting the potential for news media to influence policy change. However, scholars have paid most attention to the news media as a conduit for the agendas, frames, and preferences of other policy actors. Recently, scholars have more closely examined media actors directly contributing to policy change. This paper presents a case study to argue that specific members of the media may display the additional skills and behaviours that characterise policy entrepreneurship. Our case study focuses on mandatory childhood vaccination in Australia, following the entrepreneurial actions of a deputy newspaper editor and her affiliated outlets. Mandatory childhood vaccination policies have grown in strength and number in recent years across the industrialised world in response to parents refusing to vaccinate their children. Australia’s federal and state governments have been at the forefront of meeting vaccine refusal with harsh consequences; our case study demonstrates how media actors conceived and advanced these policies. The experiences, skills, attributes, and strategies of Sunday Telegraph Deputy Editor Claire Harvey facilitated her policy entrepreneurship, utilising many classic hallmarks from the literature and additional opportunities offered by her media role. Harvey also subverted the classic pathway of entrepreneurship, mobilising the public ahead of policymakers to force the latter’s hand.

The goal of this paper is to contribute toward bridging the gap between policy design and implementation by focusing on domains, such as education, healthcare and community services, where policy implementation is largely left to the autonomous decision of public service providers, which are strategic actors themselves. More specifically, we suggest that two characteristics of policy design spaces in which policies are designed, i.e., the level of ideational coherence and the prevailing function of the adopted policy instruments, generate systematic patterns of responses in terms of the extent of compliance with policy goals, the presence of strategic gaming and possible defiance. We illustrate our model through a contrastive case study of the introduction of performance-based funding in the higher education sector in four European countries (France, Italy, Norway, and the United Kingdom). Our analysis displays that policy designs chosen by governments to steer public systems have different trade-offs in terms of responses of the public organizations involved that are essential to effectively implement governmental policies. The model we are proposing provides therefore a framework to understand how these interactions unfold in specific contexts, what are their effects on the achievement of policy goals and how policymakers could exploit their degrees of freedom in policy design to reduce unwanted effects.

This article applies a modified Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to an in-depth case study of the contentious issue of integrating ethics into the Norwegian oil fund strategy. By exploring how ethical investment guidelines evolved from a discredited and allegedly unrealistic idea into policy consensus and, ultimately, a global exemplar, the study contributes to the literature in two ways. First, it contributes to the ongoing theoretical refinement of the MSF perspective by illustrating how the framework proves valuable in examining both agenda-setting and decision-making processes. Specifically, it confirms the relevance of a two-phase model for a more rigorous analysis of the decision-making process. Second, while prior literature defines the output of agenda-setting as a ready proposal, it is demonstrated that this outcome may not necessarily signify a fully developed policy proposal. To account for a broader range of scenarios, this article suggests redefining the output of the agenda-setting process as a policy commitment, rather than a worked-out proposal ready for negotiations in the political stream. Acknowledging the uncertainty and ambiguity in the decision-making process highlights the significance of developments in the problem and policy streams that past literature has not given due attention. Consequently, the article proposes a revised two-phase model to enhance the conceptualisation of decision-making within the MSF.