Pub Date : 2022-09-19DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2123018
Regine Paul
ABSTRACT The insertion of artificial intelligence technologies (AITs) and data-driven automation in public policymaking should be a metaphorical wake-up call for critical policy analysts. Both its wide representation as techno-solutionist remedy in otherwise slow, inefficient, and biased public decision-making and its regulation as a matter of rational risk analysis are conceptually flawed and democratically problematic. To ‘outsmart’ AI, this article stimulates the articulation of a critical research agenda on AITs and public policy, outlining three interconnected lines of inquiry for future research: (1) interpretivist disclosure of the norms and values that shape perceptions and uses of AITs in public policy, (2) exploration of AITs in public policy as a contingent practice of complex human-machine interactions, and (3) emancipatory critique of how ‘smart’ governance projects and AIT regulation interact with (global) inequalities and power relations.
{"title":"Can critical policy studies outsmart AI? Research agenda on artificial intelligence technologies and public policy","authors":"Regine Paul","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2123018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2123018","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The insertion of artificial intelligence technologies (AITs) and data-driven automation in public policymaking should be a metaphorical wake-up call for critical policy analysts. Both its wide representation as techno-solutionist remedy in otherwise slow, inefficient, and biased public decision-making and its regulation as a matter of rational risk analysis are conceptually flawed and democratically problematic. To ‘outsmart’ AI, this article stimulates the articulation of a critical research agenda on AITs and public policy, outlining three interconnected lines of inquiry for future research: (1) interpretivist disclosure of the norms and values that shape perceptions and uses of AITs in public policy, (2) exploration of AITs in public policy as a contingent practice of complex human-machine interactions, and (3) emancipatory critique of how ‘smart’ governance projects and AIT regulation interact with (global) inequalities and power relations.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"16 1","pages":"497 - 509"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49086377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-16DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2125419
Dries Dingenen, A. Bergmans
ABSTRACT In the last decades of the 20th century, a ‘participatory turn’ could be detected in radioactive waste management (RWM). Participatory governance and public participation were put forward with the aim of democratizing policy and decision-making. As participatory processes are quite complex, an examination of how public participation is operationalized often offers no straightforward answers concerning the realizations of its democratizing intentions. This study contributes to understanding the ‘double bind’ of public participation. Moreover, we elaborate on how participation can lead to democratization and to the reinforcement of the status-quo. We draw on our experiences within a large-scale participatory project aimed at siting, developing, and building a repository for low and intermediate level radioactive waste (LILW) in Belgium. In our study, we combine a historical perspective of the already two decades-long participatory process with a micro-analysis of a specific participatory initiative.
{"title":"Power and participation in the field of radioactive waste disposal","authors":"Dries Dingenen, A. Bergmans","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2125419","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2125419","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the last decades of the 20th century, a ‘participatory turn’ could be detected in radioactive waste management (RWM). Participatory governance and public participation were put forward with the aim of democratizing policy and decision-making. As participatory processes are quite complex, an examination of how public participation is operationalized often offers no straightforward answers concerning the realizations of its democratizing intentions. This study contributes to understanding the ‘double bind’ of public participation. Moreover, we elaborate on how participation can lead to democratization and to the reinforcement of the status-quo. We draw on our experiences within a large-scale participatory project aimed at siting, developing, and building a repository for low and intermediate level radioactive waste (LILW) in Belgium. In our study, we combine a historical perspective of the already two decades-long participatory process with a micro-analysis of a specific participatory initiative.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"409 - 427"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47856024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-05DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2121736
Juan Pablo Venables Brito
{"title":"Market Civilizations: neoliberals East and South","authors":"Juan Pablo Venables Brito","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2121736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2121736","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"348 - 350"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43662265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-10DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2105736
Jenny Gunnarsson Payne, Mika Handelsman-Nielsen
ABSTRACT Sweden is often described as a ‘moderate’ country when it comes to legislation and policy on assisted reproductive technologies, being relatively permissive with regards to their use, but only permitting them within a strictly regulated framework. The ‘surrogacy question’, however, remains a polarized issue in media debates and has become a key topic of public negotiation and contestation around the meaning of a range of rights. This article investigates how surrogacy became a topic for policy debate in Swedish opinion journalism between 2009 and 2019. Drawing on discourse theory, the article investigates which, and ‘whose’, rights are mobilized in the debate, as well as how these rights are differently articulated and ‘filled with meaning’. It argues that polarized discourse coalitions are formed across the political spectrum, and that the absence of explicit legislation on surrogacy has led to a pragmatic ‘split policy’ which keeps both opponents and proponents unsatisfied, keeping the debate alive.
{"title":"The surrogacy question, unresolved: surrogacy policy debate as a hegemonic struggle over rights","authors":"Jenny Gunnarsson Payne, Mika Handelsman-Nielsen","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2105736","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2105736","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Sweden is often described as a ‘moderate’ country when it comes to legislation and policy on assisted reproductive technologies, being relatively permissive with regards to their use, but only permitting them within a strictly regulated framework. The ‘surrogacy question’, however, remains a polarized issue in media debates and has become a key topic of public negotiation and contestation around the meaning of a range of rights. This article investigates how surrogacy became a topic for policy debate in Swedish opinion journalism between 2009 and 2019. Drawing on discourse theory, the article investigates which, and ‘whose’, rights are mobilized in the debate, as well as how these rights are differently articulated and ‘filled with meaning’. It argues that polarized discourse coalitions are formed across the political spectrum, and that the absence of explicit legislation on surrogacy has led to a pragmatic ‘split policy’ which keeps both opponents and proponents unsatisfied, keeping the debate alive.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"372 - 389"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41500877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-28DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2101015
Hanna Rautajoki, Laia Pi Ferrer
ABSTRACT This article examines national responses to the introduction of a strong policy coordination tool by the European Commission: the European Semester. The tool was introduced in 2012 in reaction to the economic crisis to prevent unsustainable policy choices within EMU. It sets annual country-specific recommendations for economic policies, which the Member States are expected to implement when drafting national budgets. We study the uptake of the policy tool in three disparate Member States: Finland, Spain and France in 2013. The article explores how national parliaments tackle the challenge imposed on national sovereignty by the powerful tool. We investigate the discursive practices and justifications evinced by national politicians on policy proposal in the parliamentary debate on annual state budget. Politicians balance between contrastive normative frameworks by operating on evasive discursive formulations and performative silences, which point to a deafened legitimation work and double commitment within the multilevel polity of the EU.
{"title":"Shadowboxing in silence: balancing with European Semester guidelines in national parliamentary debates on economic policies","authors":"Hanna Rautajoki, Laia Pi Ferrer","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2101015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2101015","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines national responses to the introduction of a strong policy coordination tool by the European Commission: the European Semester. The tool was introduced in 2012 in reaction to the economic crisis to prevent unsustainable policy choices within EMU. It sets annual country-specific recommendations for economic policies, which the Member States are expected to implement when drafting national budgets. We study the uptake of the policy tool in three disparate Member States: Finland, Spain and France in 2013. The article explores how national parliaments tackle the challenge imposed on national sovereignty by the powerful tool. We investigate the discursive practices and justifications evinced by national politicians on policy proposal in the parliamentary debate on annual state budget. Politicians balance between contrastive normative frameworks by operating on evasive discursive formulations and performative silences, which point to a deafened legitimation work and double commitment within the multilevel polity of the EU.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"351 - 371"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45921758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-22DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2102046
Louise Dalingwater, E. Mangrio, Michael Strange, S. Zdravkovic
ABSTRACT Migration management policies in many states have marginalized significant numbers of individuals on the basis of their precarious residency status, negatively impacting their health. This article looks at how three European states with high levels of contagion – France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom – adapted their migration management policies to the changed circumstances during the Covid 19 pandemic in which there was new pressure for prioritizing population health over other concerns. The analysis compares globally-recognized ‘best practices’ for migrant health during the pandemic with policies adopted by France, Sweden, and the UK – selected as prominent migrant-hosting states and that experienced high rates of Covid-19. The article draws on supplementary evidence through interviews with civil society organizations working directly with migrants living on the margins of society – what are termed here ‘marginalized migrants’ (MMs). As the article concludes, the national policies often fell below international ‘best practices’ such that migration management was often prioritized over population health despite the crisis. The perspective developed in this paper is important for understanding where migration control policies have been prioritized over public health.
{"title":"Policies on marginalized migrant communities during Covid-19: migration management prioritized over population health","authors":"Louise Dalingwater, E. Mangrio, Michael Strange, S. Zdravkovic","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2102046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2102046","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Migration management policies in many states have marginalized significant numbers of individuals on the basis of their precarious residency status, negatively impacting their health. This article looks at how three European states with high levels of contagion – France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom – adapted their migration management policies to the changed circumstances during the Covid 19 pandemic in which there was new pressure for prioritizing population health over other concerns. The analysis compares globally-recognized ‘best practices’ for migrant health during the pandemic with policies adopted by France, Sweden, and the UK – selected as prominent migrant-hosting states and that experienced high rates of Covid-19. The article draws on supplementary evidence through interviews with civil society organizations working directly with migrants living on the margins of society – what are termed here ‘marginalized migrants’ (MMs). As the article concludes, the national policies often fell below international ‘best practices’ such that migration management was often prioritized over population health despite the crisis. The perspective developed in this paper is important for understanding where migration control policies have been prioritized over public health.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"316 - 336"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42972101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-23DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2092523
N. Funke, D. Huitema, Arthur Petersen
ABSTRACT This article contributes to the literature on environmental policy controversies. We utilize an Argumentative Discourse Analysis (ADA)-based approachto analyze the struggle for discursive hegemony that took place between competing story-lines in the context of the acid mine drainage (AMD) environmental policy problem, located in the gold mining areas of greater Johannesburg, South Africa. With this article we make a theoretical contribution by presenting and applying an adapted ADA framework strongly focused on the operationalization of key ADA concepts. Our empirical contribution lies in providing a rich and deep analysis of an environmental policy controversy that has not yet been studied from an ADA perspective. In particular, we demonstrate and discuss the complex path to discourse institutionalization followed by the dominant emergent AMD story-line. In conclusion , we recommend steps for updating the ADA approach and developing an accompanying set of guidelines to further enable the operationalization of its concepts.
{"title":"Impending doom or unnecessary panic? The struggle for discursive hegemony in South Africa’s acid mine drainage policy problem","authors":"N. Funke, D. Huitema, Arthur Petersen","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2092523","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2092523","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article contributes to the literature on environmental policy controversies. We utilize an Argumentative Discourse Analysis (ADA)-based approachto analyze the struggle for discursive hegemony that took place between competing story-lines in the context of the acid mine drainage (AMD) environmental policy problem, located in the gold mining areas of greater Johannesburg, South Africa. With this article we make a theoretical contribution by presenting and applying an adapted ADA framework strongly focused on the operationalization of key ADA concepts. Our empirical contribution lies in providing a rich and deep analysis of an environmental policy controversy that has not yet been studied from an ADA perspective. In particular, we demonstrate and discuss the complex path to discourse institutionalization followed by the dominant emergent AMD story-line. In conclusion , we recommend steps for updating the ADA approach and developing an accompanying set of guidelines to further enable the operationalization of its concepts.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"276 - 296"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44266372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-20DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2092019
R. Boullosa
{"title":"Truth and post-truth in public policy: interpreting the arguments","authors":"R. Boullosa","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2092019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2092019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"346 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45045345","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2089706
Anne Vogelpohl, Chris Hurl, M. Howard, R. Marciano, Uttara Purandare, Andrew Sturdy
ABSTRACT This forum article discusses how the Covid19-pandemic as a major public crisis is transforming the relationship between governments and management consultants, contributing to the deepening presence of consulting firms in policy-making and governance. It shows how the crisis has entrenched private advice in public policymaking as governments are spending millions of dollars on transnational professional service firms like McKinsey, KPMG, Deloitte and Accenture to coordinate their pandemic responses. Drawing from comparative research of India, Australia, UK, Germany and Canada, we outline how interests have been aligned through both the state’s demand for quick advice and the readily available supply of expertise provided by firms seeking to expand their markets. In this context, we note that professional services firms have been able to leverage their scope, scale, speed and networks in deepening their role in governance, moving beyond simply advising governments to providing core administrative functions. We conclude by discussing the implications for democracy and the possibilities for contestation.
{"title":"Pandemic consulting. How private consultants leverage public crisis management","authors":"Anne Vogelpohl, Chris Hurl, M. Howard, R. Marciano, Uttara Purandare, Andrew Sturdy","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2089706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2089706","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This forum article discusses how the Covid19-pandemic as a major public crisis is transforming the relationship between governments and management consultants, contributing to the deepening presence of consulting firms in policy-making and governance. It shows how the crisis has entrenched private advice in public policymaking as governments are spending millions of dollars on transnational professional service firms like McKinsey, KPMG, Deloitte and Accenture to coordinate their pandemic responses. Drawing from comparative research of India, Australia, UK, Germany and Canada, we outline how interests have been aligned through both the state’s demand for quick advice and the readily available supply of expertise provided by firms seeking to expand their markets. In this context, we note that professional services firms have been able to leverage their scope, scale, speed and networks in deepening their role in governance, moving beyond simply advising governments to providing core administrative functions. We conclude by discussing the implications for democracy and the possibilities for contestation.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"16 1","pages":"371 - 381"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44375161","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-21DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2022.2078731
M. Meesters, E. Turnhout, J. Behagel
ABSTRACT In this article, we analyze the role of measurement practices in a public dispute about the impacts of mining in the Netherlands. Drawing on studies of material participation and agential realism, we analyze how measurement practices shape the boundaries of subsurface objects. We detail how these boundaries become relevant for assessing mining impacts and show how this enables and constrains material participation. Simply put, if a process or thing is not measured into being, it cannot participate in negotiations about causality and impact. Our analysis shows that scientific conventions narrowly determined what measurements are credible and, consequently, limited the participation of other objects and processes in negotiations about damage and compensation. This underscores how ontological disagreements about the existence and measurability of subsurface processes affect what claims can be made. We conclude by discussing conditions for pluralist and equitable processes of material participation in measurement practices.
{"title":"Negotiating salt worlds: causation and material participation","authors":"M. Meesters, E. Turnhout, J. Behagel","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2022.2078731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2078731","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we analyze the role of measurement practices in a public dispute about the impacts of mining in the Netherlands. Drawing on studies of material participation and agential realism, we analyze how measurement practices shape the boundaries of subsurface objects. We detail how these boundaries become relevant for assessing mining impacts and show how this enables and constrains material participation. Simply put, if a process or thing is not measured into being, it cannot participate in negotiations about causality and impact. Our analysis shows that scientific conventions narrowly determined what measurements are credible and, consequently, limited the participation of other objects and processes in negotiations about damage and compensation. This underscores how ontological disagreements about the existence and measurability of subsurface processes affect what claims can be made. We conclude by discussing conditions for pluralist and equitable processes of material participation in measurement practices.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":"297 - 315"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45005322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：