Policy Sciences最新文献

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.

Coalitions that engage in political advocacy are constituted by organisations, which are made up of individuals and organisational subunits. Comparing the coalitions formed by organisations to the those formed by their constituent parts provides a means of examining the extent to which their coalition memberships are aligned. This paper applies inferential network clustering methods to survey data collected from organisations engaging in Irish climate change politics and to X (formerly twitter) data extracted from both the primary accounts of these organisations and the accounts of the individuals and subunits affiliated with them. Analysis of the survey-based organisation-level policy network finds evidence of an outsider coalition, formed by non-governmental organisations, labour unions and left-leaning political parties, and an insider coalition formed by the two main political parties in government, energy sector organisations, business and agricultural interests, scientific organisations, and government bodies. An analysis of the X-based account-level endorsement network finds evidence for a nested coalition structure wherein there are multiple distinct communities, which largely align with the organisation-level coalitions. Most interestingly, the largest and most active community is formed by accounts affiliated with the organisations with agricultural interests—the sector most opposed to ambitious climate action in Ireland. The results show how the somewhat disjoint behaviours of formal organisations and their affiliates give rise to nested coalitions, which can only be identified by disaggregating organisations by their constituent parts.

The continuity of Harold D. Lasswell’s legacy as a champion of democratic policysciences is demonstrated.

In “The Policy Science of Harold Lasswell: Contextual Orientation and the Critical Dimension,” Torgerson argues against the simplistic classification of scholars, suggesting that stereotyping positions should be resisted or exposed as rhetorical devices rather than serious engagements. Torgerson illustrates that Lasswell was, in part, a critical policy scholar who promoted reflexivity and radical democracy. This book serves as a reminder that engaging with the deeper meanings and the potential overlaps between and contradictions within our stereotypes may foster the shared ideals of emancipation, security, deliberation, and creativity. Although today’s interpretation of Lasswell and the policy sciences may have been stripped of its original meaning, we can still follow Lasswell’s guidance by directing our scholarship toward empowering the disadvantaged and achieving greater political equality for all.

Over the past decade, a range of efforts have been made to incorporate practices drawn from industrial and participatory design into elements of the public policymaking process. Our interest lies in the field of co-design in policymaking. This emerging field has seen considerable emphasis placed on informing policy development with knowledge and insights from those living with specific problems and existing policy settings. Following the extant literature, we define co-design in policymaking as a participatory and design-oriented process which creatively and actively engages a diverse pool of participants to define and address a public problem. Evidence to date suggests co-design in policymaking can be especially useful in broadening participation in policy development, encouraging creative speculation about how policy choices might shape future outcomes, and prototyping policy approaches to assess their feasibility and desirability. But evidence continues to emerge regarding the barriers in many public sector settings that preclude co-design practice from greater engagement with – and influence upon – long-established, tightly-held processes of policy development. Through critical assessment of existing literature, we summarise the current state of co-design in policymaking. We then suggest promising ways policy practitioners and researchers could contribute to making co-design an embedded practice in policymaking, well-used and well-recognised for the unique contributions it can make to policy development.