Policy Sciences最新文献

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.

Firms often oppose costly public policy reforms—but under what conditions may they come to support such reforms? Previous scholarship has taken a predominantly static approach to the analysis of business positions. Here, we advance a dynamic theory of change in business policy positions that explains how business may shift from opposing to supporting new regulation over the course of multiple rounds of policymaking. We identify three sets of drivers and causal mechanisms behind business repositioning related to political, policy, and market change. We argue that political mechanisms can shift opposition to “strategic support” for reform, whereas policy and market mechanisms may shift opposition or strategic support toward “sincere support.” We examine the reconfiguration of business interests and policy positions in the context of three decades of US climate politics, focusing on the oil and gas, electricity, and auto sectors. Our dynamic theory of business positions moves beyond the dualism that views business as either opposing or supporting public interest regulation. We thus advance our understanding of why initial business opposition can incrementally turn into strategic or sincere support for policy reform.

Scholars have spent decades arguing that policy entrepreneurs, change agents who work individually and in groups to influence the policy process, can be crucial in introducing policy innovation and spurring policy change. How to identify policy entrepreneurs empirically has received less attention. This oversight is consequential because scholars trying to understand when policy entrepreneurs emerge, and why, and what makes them more or less successful, need to be able to identify these change agents reliably and accurately. This paper explores the ways policy entrepreneurs are currently identified and highlights issues with current approaches. We introduce a new technique for eliciting and distinguishing policy entrepreneurs, coupling automated and manual analysis of local news media and a survey of policy entrepreneur candidates. We apply this technique to the empirical case of unconventional oil and gas drilling in Pennsylvania and derive some tentative results concerning factors which increase entrepreneurial efficacy.

The “policy subsystem” has long been a key concept in our understanding of how policies on a given topic are produced. However, we know much less about policymaking in nascent policy subsystems. This article draws on the theories of agenda-setting and venue shopping to argue that the similarity and convergence of policy subsystems’ agendas across different institutional venues and over time are features that distinguish more nascent policy subsystems from their more established, mature counterparts. In simple terms, policy venues’ agendas converge when policy actors begin to discuss the same issues and instruments instead of talking past one another. The article illustrates this argument using textual data on Germany’s emerging Artificial Intelligence (AI) policy: print media debates, parliamentary debates, and a government consultation from the period between November 2017 and November 2019. The insights from our analysis show that actors emphasize somewhat different policy issues and instruments related to AI in different venues. Nevertheless, the longitudinal analysis suggests that the debate does seem to converge across different venues, which indicates the formation of a subsystem-specific policy agenda regarding AI.

While prior studies have examined various factors that affect immigration policymaking across Europe, little attention has been paid to the impact of the gender structure within parliament. It has been found that female parliamentarians are more concerned with the interests of women, children, and other marginalized groups than their male colleagues. Consequently, they are more likely to prioritize the rights of immigrants who represent an important social minority in European settings. Leveraging a panel data set spanning 26 European states from 2007 to 2019, the paper shows that an increase in the share of women parliamentarians is indeed associated with the liberalization of immigration policy. The results remain significant when employing historical female enrollment as an instrumental variable. Notably, the growth of the right-wing parties (including mainstream and radical right parties) in parliament would undercut the positive impact of female parliamentarians. The paper sheds some light on European immigration policymaking and female political representation.