Nils C. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Fritz Sager, Ilana Schröder
<p>Summer is the time for conferences and the release of new journal rankings. For the editorial teams of journals specializing in policy process research, including European Policy Analysis (EPA), both are interconnected. Ideally, they both help to increase the chances of attracting more high-quality submissions and special issues, while also promoting the journal among readers and reviewers.</p><p>The citation scores for 2023 remained very high for EPA. Both in the Web of Science and Scopus, the journal is ranked in Q1 of the political science category. Our new Impact Factor (IF) is 2.7, which positions us at 56/317 in Political Science and 23/91 in Public Administration. In Scopus, we have an outstanding CiteScore of 9.7, placing us at 9/706 in Political Science and International Relations, and 11/232 in Public Administration. These figures are, of course, situational and will fluctuate frequently; they likely say little about the actual quality of the journal. However, we hope they contribute to attracting more interest in the journal, thereby helping us to firmly establish EPA as a leading journal for European perspectives in policy process research.</p><p>Relevant conferences in both political science and public policy are also very helpful in this regard. We engage in regular exchanges with the editorial teams of other journals to discuss new challenges. These include formal developments such as open access, the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, and possible reactions from commercial publishers and professional associations, all of which we must address. Simultaneously, there are exciting substantive developments in our field. These include new approaches and methods for understanding networks in policymaking, which are particularly intriguing in the diverse European countries and the European Union (EU) multi-level system. Are there European perspectives and knowledge from which the international policy process community can benefit? The freely submitted contributions in this issue make important contributions in this regard and will hopefully generate significant interest.</p><p>Capano et al. (<span>2024</span>) investigate a question of fundamental importance to current policy process research: What constitutes political networks? What are the motives for cooperation between policy actors, and what role do coalitions between actors play in policy-making? Policy process research has developed and tested a variety of perspectives on specific cases of collaboration (Guo, <span>2022</span>; Ingold et al., <span>2021</span>; Möck, <span>2021</span>). This paper draws on three perspectives and examines their explanatory power through the example of two networks of administrative reform in Italy. What do we find in these networks? Are they more akin to policy communities, which are stable coalitions of heterogeneous actors with a common interest to frame the policy discourse (Jordan, <span>1990</span>; Miller & Demir, <span>20
夏季是召开会议和发布新期刊排名的季节。对于包括《欧洲政策分析》(EPA)在内的政策过程研究专业期刊的编辑团队来说,这两件事是相互关联的。理想情况下,它们都有助于增加吸引更多高质量投稿和特刊的机会,同时还能在读者和审稿人中宣传期刊。在 Web of Science 和 Scopus 中,该期刊在政治学类别中均排名第一。我们的新影响因子(IF)为 2.7,在政治学领域排名 56/317,在公共管理领域排名 23/91。在 Scopus 中,我们的 CiteScore 高达 9.7,在政治学与国际关系类中排名第 9/706,在公共管理类中排名第 11/232。当然,这些数字是根据情况而定的,而且会经常波动;它们对期刊的实际质量可能说明不了什么。不过,我们希望这些数字能引起更多读者对该期刊的兴趣,从而帮助我们牢固确立《欧洲政治与公共政策》在欧洲政策过程研究领域的领先地位。我们与其他期刊的编辑团队定期交流,讨论新的挑战。这些挑战包括开放存取等形式上的发展、人工智能的快速进步以及商业出版商和专业协会可能做出的反应,我们必须应对所有这些挑战。与此同时,我们的领域也取得了令人振奋的实质性进展。其中包括在政策制定过程中了解网络的新方法和新途径,这在多样化的欧洲国家和欧盟(EU)多层次体系中尤为引人入胜。国际政策进程界是否可以从欧洲的观点和知识中获益?本期自由投稿的文章在这方面做出了重要贡献,希望能引起人们的浓厚兴趣:什么是政治网络?政策行动者之间合作的动机是什么?行动者之间的联盟在决策中扮演什么角色?政策过程研究针对具体的合作案例提出并检验了各种观点(Guo,2022;Ingold 等人,2021;Möck,2021)。本文借鉴了这三种观点,并通过意大利两个行政改革网络的例子来研究它们的解释力。我们在这些网络中发现了什么?它们是否更类似于政策社群,即具有共同利益的异质行动者组成的稳定联盟,以构建政策话语框架(Jordan, 1990; Miller & Demir, 2007);或者它们是否更类似于认识论社群,即以专业技能为基础的专家网络,旨在影响政策决策(Haas, 1992; Zito, 2018)?第三种可能性是计划性团体,它们分享传记并寻求政治权威以实施共同计划(Bandelow & Hornung, 2023; Vogeler et al.)所选案例主要与计划性群体相对应,其中一个案例也表现出认识论群体的要素。在本期的第二篇论文中,Schiffers 和 Plümer.(在本期的第二篇论文中,Schiffers 和 Plümer:是什么因果机制导致了政策变化?他们从标点均衡理论(PET,Baumgartner 等人,2023 年;Ugyel 等人,2024 年)的角度出发,确定了可能的机制。在实证研究中,他们采用定性过程追踪法研究了德国于 2021 年引入的强制性游说者登记制度。他们得出结论,三种机制共同发挥作用:负反馈导致政策问题的重新表述,正反馈强化了政策的问题网络,以及通过丑闻的积累产生正反馈。除了重要的实质性发现外,Schiffers 和 Plümer 的这一贡献还加强了 PET 在定性政策过程研究中的使用及其在欧洲的实证应用(Beyer 等人,2022 年)。其中一个例子就是移民政策,这也意味着欧盟国家在共同应对新出现的非正常移民挑战时的团结问题。Abisso 等人(2024 年)通过对意大利、马耳他和西班牙的报刊文章进行内容分析,研究了欧盟行为体和治理在这一背景下的形象。 7,这是非常出色的成绩,在政治科学和国际关系中排名第9(共706本杂志),在公共管理中排名第11(共232本杂志)。当然,这些数字是情境性的,并且会经常波动;它们很可能无法反映期刊的实际质量。但是,我们希望它们有助于吸引更多人对该期刊的兴趣,从而帮助我们牢固确立EPA作为“从欧洲视角分析政策过程研究”的领先期刊的地位。政治学和公共政策领域的相关会议在这方面也非常有帮助。我们与其他期刊的编辑团队定期交流,讨论新的挑战。这些挑战包括:开放获取等正式发展、人工智能的快速发展、以及商业出版商和专业协会可能作出的反应,这一切都是我们必须应对的。同时,我们的领域也出现了令人兴奋的实质性发展。这些包括用于理解决策网络的新措施和方法,这在多元化的欧洲国家和欧盟(EU)多层次系统中尤其具有吸引力。是否存在能让国际政策过程社区受益的欧洲观点和知识?本期收录的稿件在这方面作出了重要贡献,并有望引起读者的极大兴趣。Giliberto Capano、Eleonora Erittu、Giulio Francisci和Alessandro Natalini(2024)探究了当前政策过程研究的一个根本性问题:政治网络由什么组成?政策行动者之间合作的动机是什么,行动者之间的联盟在决策中扮演什么角色?政策过程研究已经发展并测试了一系列关于具体合作案例的观点(Möck 2021, Guo 2022, Ingold, Fischer, and Christopoulos 2021)。这篇文章借鉴了三个观点,并通过意大利两个行政改革网络的例子来检验观点的解释力。我们在这些网络中发现了什么?它们是否更像政策共同体,即由具有共同利益的异质行动者组成的稳定联盟,以建构政策话语(Jordan 1990, Miller and Demir 2007)?还是它们更像认知共同体,即基于专业知识的专家网络,旨在影响政策决策(Zito 2018, Haas 1992)?第三种可能性是计划团体,它们分享个人经历并寻求政治权力来实施共同计划(Bandelow and Hornung 2023, Vogeler, van den Dool, and Chen 2023)。所选案例主要对应于计划团体,其中一个案例还展示了认知共同体的要素。无论如何,这篇文章对“迄今为止在单独研究中更多地被假设而不是检验的理论概念的比较实证研究”作出了重要贡献。本期收录的第二篇论文中,Maximilian Schiffers和Sandra Plümer(2024)为政策过程研究的另一个核心问题作出了贡献,这个问题则是:哪些因果机制导致政策变革?他们使用间断平衡理论(PET, Baumgartner, Jones, and Mortensen 2023, Ugyel, Givel, and Chophel 2024)来识别可能的机制。从实证角度来看,他们使用定性过程追踪来分析2021年德国对强制性游说登记制度的引入情况。他们得出的结论是,三种机制的结合发挥了作用:负面反馈导致政策议题的重新主题化,正面反馈强化了政策的议题网络,并且丑闻的积累产生了正面反馈。除了重要的实质性发现之外,Schiffers和Plümer的文章还加强了PET在定性政策过程研究中的使用及其在欧洲的实证应用(Beyer et al. 2022)。有些政策问题跨越了欧洲国家的边界,需要欧洲各国的协调。移民政策就是这样一个例子,它还意味着欧盟国家在共同应对非正常移民这一新兴挑战方面的团结性问题。Martina Abisso、Andrea Terlizzi和Eugenio Cusumano(2024)通过对
{"title":"Networks and perception in European policymaking","authors":"Nils C. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Fritz Sager, Ilana Schröder","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1218","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1218","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Summer is the time for conferences and the release of new journal rankings. For the editorial teams of journals specializing in policy process research, including European Policy Analysis (EPA), both are interconnected. Ideally, they both help to increase the chances of attracting more high-quality submissions and special issues, while also promoting the journal among readers and reviewers.</p><p>The citation scores for 2023 remained very high for EPA. Both in the Web of Science and Scopus, the journal is ranked in Q1 of the political science category. Our new Impact Factor (IF) is 2.7, which positions us at 56/317 in Political Science and 23/91 in Public Administration. In Scopus, we have an outstanding CiteScore of 9.7, placing us at 9/706 in Political Science and International Relations, and 11/232 in Public Administration. These figures are, of course, situational and will fluctuate frequently; they likely say little about the actual quality of the journal. However, we hope they contribute to attracting more interest in the journal, thereby helping us to firmly establish EPA as a leading journal for European perspectives in policy process research.</p><p>Relevant conferences in both political science and public policy are also very helpful in this regard. We engage in regular exchanges with the editorial teams of other journals to discuss new challenges. These include formal developments such as open access, the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, and possible reactions from commercial publishers and professional associations, all of which we must address. Simultaneously, there are exciting substantive developments in our field. These include new approaches and methods for understanding networks in policymaking, which are particularly intriguing in the diverse European countries and the European Union (EU) multi-level system. Are there European perspectives and knowledge from which the international policy process community can benefit? The freely submitted contributions in this issue make important contributions in this regard and will hopefully generate significant interest.</p><p>Capano et al. (<span>2024</span>) investigate a question of fundamental importance to current policy process research: What constitutes political networks? What are the motives for cooperation between policy actors, and what role do coalitions between actors play in policy-making? Policy process research has developed and tested a variety of perspectives on specific cases of collaboration (Guo, <span>2022</span>; Ingold et al., <span>2021</span>; Möck, <span>2021</span>). This paper draws on three perspectives and examines their explanatory power through the example of two networks of administrative reform in Italy. What do we find in these networks? Are they more akin to policy communities, which are stable coalitions of heterogeneous actors with a common interest to frame the policy discourse (Jordan, <span>1990</span>; Miller & Demir, <span>20","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 3","pages":"306-310"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1218","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141980169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bureaucratic elites and national public administrations' experts play a key role in the preparation of supranational policies and in shaping global governance instruments. However, we know surprisingly little about what factors drive their preferences and support for supranational solutions. Drawing on the results of a vignette and conjoint experiment and the case of the European Commission's policy initiative to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards, this study analyzes the effect of the communicative framing of a policy's objective and how experts' attitudes influence their preferences for policy outcomes. The study shows that the communicative framing of a policy's objective based on functional needs rather than on normative grounds increases support among national administrations' experts. Moreover, the study finds evidence that experts who internalized a public service motivation and those with a supranationalist collective identity are more willing to give up national sovereignty in favor of supranational policy solutions.
{"title":"Is who they are, what they prefer? Understanding bureaucratic elites' policy preferences for European integration of government accounting","authors":"Pascal Horni","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1215","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Bureaucratic elites and national public administrations' experts play a key role in the preparation of supranational policies and in shaping global governance instruments. However, we know surprisingly little about what factors drive their preferences and support for supranational solutions. Drawing on the results of a vignette and conjoint experiment and the case of the European Commission's policy initiative to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards, this study analyzes the effect of the communicative framing of a policy's objective and how experts' attitudes influence their preferences for policy outcomes. The study shows that the communicative framing of a policy's objective based on functional needs rather than on normative grounds increases support among national administrations' experts. Moreover, the study finds evidence that experts who internalized a public service motivation and those with a supranationalist collective identity are more willing to give up national sovereignty in favor of supranational policy solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 3","pages":"449-475"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1215","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141980343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Through learning, policy actors can maintain, reinforce, or revise their beliefs and positions about the design and outcomes of policies. This paper critically analyzes factors influencing policy learning by comparing policy processes of two EU laws of the recent “Fit for 55” climate package: (i) revised provisions on increasing energy efficiency in companies included in the recast Energy Efficiency Directive and (ii) the new FuelEU Maritime regulation provided for decarbonizing maritime shipping. Learning across coalitions with competing beliefs was encountered in the first case but not in the other despite similar institutional settings. The difference is attributed to a more politicized debate on decarbonizing shipping, leading to consensus through bargaining instead of deliberation, and a circumscribed leader of one coalition, with a less flexible negotiation mandate. The paper adds to the theory on policy learning, suggesting that levels of politicization and polarization, as well as the mandates of the coalition leaders, influence cross-coalition learning.
{"title":"Explaining differences in policy learning in the EU \"Fit for 55” climate policy package","authors":"Fredrik von Malmborg","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1210","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Through learning, policy actors can maintain, reinforce, or revise their beliefs and positions about the design and outcomes of policies. This paper critically analyzes factors influencing policy learning by comparing policy processes of two EU laws of the recent “Fit for 55” climate package: (i) revised provisions on increasing energy efficiency in companies included in the recast Energy Efficiency Directive and (ii) the new FuelEU Maritime regulation provided for decarbonizing maritime shipping. Learning across coalitions with competing beliefs was encountered in the first case but not in the other despite similar institutional settings. The difference is attributed to a more politicized debate on decarbonizing shipping, leading to consensus through bargaining instead of deliberation, and a circumscribed leader of one coalition, with a less flexible negotiation mandate. The paper adds to the theory on policy learning, suggesting that levels of politicization and polarization, as well as the mandates of the coalition leaders, influence cross-coalition learning.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 3","pages":"412-448"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1210","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141980460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nils C. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Fritz Sager, Ilana Schröder
<p>Artificial intelligence (AI), climate change, COVID-19, financial budgets, religion and state in Israel—the challenges that the EU and countries in Europe face today seem to increase rather than decrease. This EPA issue includes contributions that show the extent of diversity with which European policy research deals with these topics. The articles draw from different theoretical and/or methodological approaches to analyze the capacity of European governments and the EU in governing these challenges, the ideas and discourses that emerge around them, and the role that bureaucrats and citizens play in bottom-up processes.</p><p>AI is the newest among the mentioned challenges and is subject to increased attention in public policy research. Several articles tackle AI by analyzing the national or global governance of AI technologies (Büthe et al., <span>2022</span>; Erman & Furendal, <span>2022</span>; Radu, <span>2021</span>; Robles & Mallinson, <span>2023b</span>; Taeihagh, <span>2021</span>; Ulnicane & Erkkilä, <span>2023</span>), including the setting of standards (von Ingersleben-Seip, <span>2023</span>), the perceptions by citizens and relevance of public trust (Ingrams et al., <span>2021</span>; Robles & Mallinson, <span>2023a</span>; Schiff et al., <span>2023</span>) or the impact of AI “on the ground” (Brunn et al., <span>2020</span>; Selten et al., <span>2023</span>). Following this recent rise in interest in AI, Lemke et al. (<span>2024</span>) tie in with a contribution that methodologically relies on discourse analysis (Newman & Mintrom, <span>2023</span>) and opens this issue by a comprehensive depiction of the German discourse on AI. Their systematic analysis includes 6421 statements from various relevant stakeholders with a focus on how AI is defined and framed as a policy problem. Thereby, the analysis underpins that AI is (still) perceived as an issue primarily related to technology and, hence, placed in the policy sector of technology and innovation. It is thus not an issue where questions around civil rights, labor, or education dominate, although the multitude of stakeholders framing and defining the problem increases uncertainty in problem definition. Furthermore, the discourse highlights the need for international cooperation.</p><p>With Germany being a large European country with a central role in the European Union (EU), such emphasis of international cooperation also refers to joint endeavors at a European level. However, to be able to address problems that concern Europe, the EU must have the necessary leverage, and members states must also comply with adopted laws—which is often not the case (Brendler & Thomann, <span>2023</span>; Heidbreder, <span>2017</span>; Kriegmair et al., <span>2022</span>; Thomann & Sager, <span>2017</span>). Clinton and Arregui (<span>2024</span>) look into these infringements of EU law at local and regional levels of EU members states to identify explanations for why
In contrast, a direct correlation between large shares of seats held by populists in parliament and excess mortality cannot be shown. At first glance,political institutions and state capacity are also hardly directly correlated with excess mortality. However, the picture becomes more complex whenthe country clusters are differentiated and a distinction is made between the phases with and without vaccination.Contributing to the increasinglystudied role of street-level bureaucrats in public policy (Arnold, 2013; Brodkin, 2012; Edri-Peer et al., 2023), Niva Golan-Nadir (2024) zooms in on areligion-directed food policy reform in Israel to answer what encourages civil servants to become policy entrepreneurs. Focusing on macrolevelfactors, the paper argues that bureaucratic inefficiency, related societal pressure, and competition by other service providers encouragesbureaucrats to engage more strongly for an issue and take on entrepreneurial strategies to increase its success. This causal model is illustrated withthe case of the Israeli Rabbinate, a state institution that successfully defended its monopoly on regulating kosher food certificates in 2021. Drawingon governmental statistics, public opinion surveys, elite interviews and analyses of (policy) documents and media, the study shows how the ActingGeneral Director of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate identified a time of high public dissatisfaction and rising attention for private sector competitors asa window of opportunity to improve the Rabbinate's service provision while maintaining its monopoly. These findings show how critical situations canspark innovation and motivate policy entrepreneurship and change.While the importance of multilevel top-down policy processes cannot be neglected,the last contribution in this issue sheds light on the equally important bottom-up initiatives of policymaking. Using a mixed-methods approach, Bogoand Falanga (2024) explore the dissemination and financial dimension of participatory budgeting (PB) in Portugal, that is, citizen-centeredcollective decision making on public budget (Bartocci et al., 2022). The authors show how (mostly local) PBs have increased throughout Portugal in four waves after their introduction in 2002. This growth was pushed forward, inter alia, by the initiation of the Lisbon PB and national PBs, a stronger focus on young people, new implementation strategies, and PB's support amongcenter-right governments in the North of the country. The comparative analysis of 134 Portuguese PBs between 2002 and 2019 shows that most investmentswere assured in the fourth wave from 2015 to 2019, although the mean investment per PB has decreased since 2009. As of 2019, most PBs relied on less than 2% ofpublic investments, implying a rather weak financial impact. The authors conclude that although PB as a democratic innovation has spread considerablyin Portugal since the early 2000s, it plays only a limited role in the absolute financial investment (per capita), n
{"title":"Discourses and bottom-up policymaking in Europe and the EU","authors":"Nils C. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Fritz Sager, Ilana Schröder","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1209","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Artificial intelligence (AI), climate change, COVID-19, financial budgets, religion and state in Israel—the challenges that the EU and countries in Europe face today seem to increase rather than decrease. This EPA issue includes contributions that show the extent of diversity with which European policy research deals with these topics. The articles draw from different theoretical and/or methodological approaches to analyze the capacity of European governments and the EU in governing these challenges, the ideas and discourses that emerge around them, and the role that bureaucrats and citizens play in bottom-up processes.</p><p>AI is the newest among the mentioned challenges and is subject to increased attention in public policy research. Several articles tackle AI by analyzing the national or global governance of AI technologies (Büthe et al., <span>2022</span>; Erman & Furendal, <span>2022</span>; Radu, <span>2021</span>; Robles & Mallinson, <span>2023b</span>; Taeihagh, <span>2021</span>; Ulnicane & Erkkilä, <span>2023</span>), including the setting of standards (von Ingersleben-Seip, <span>2023</span>), the perceptions by citizens and relevance of public trust (Ingrams et al., <span>2021</span>; Robles & Mallinson, <span>2023a</span>; Schiff et al., <span>2023</span>) or the impact of AI “on the ground” (Brunn et al., <span>2020</span>; Selten et al., <span>2023</span>). Following this recent rise in interest in AI, Lemke et al. (<span>2024</span>) tie in with a contribution that methodologically relies on discourse analysis (Newman & Mintrom, <span>2023</span>) and opens this issue by a comprehensive depiction of the German discourse on AI. Their systematic analysis includes 6421 statements from various relevant stakeholders with a focus on how AI is defined and framed as a policy problem. Thereby, the analysis underpins that AI is (still) perceived as an issue primarily related to technology and, hence, placed in the policy sector of technology and innovation. It is thus not an issue where questions around civil rights, labor, or education dominate, although the multitude of stakeholders framing and defining the problem increases uncertainty in problem definition. Furthermore, the discourse highlights the need for international cooperation.</p><p>With Germany being a large European country with a central role in the European Union (EU), such emphasis of international cooperation also refers to joint endeavors at a European level. However, to be able to address problems that concern Europe, the EU must have the necessary leverage, and members states must also comply with adopted laws—which is often not the case (Brendler & Thomann, <span>2023</span>; Heidbreder, <span>2017</span>; Kriegmair et al., <span>2022</span>; Thomann & Sager, <span>2017</span>). Clinton and Arregui (<span>2024</span>) look into these infringements of EU law at local and regional levels of EU members states to identify explanations for why","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 2","pages":"158-161"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1209","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141084972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Free movement of goods within the EU is guaranteed via mutual recognition: any product lawfully produced in one member state must also be accepted in all other member states. While unleashing economic benefits from trade without regulatory barriers, mutual recognition potentially limits member states' ability to address societal concerns with regard to production conditions. This hypothesis is addressed via the case of farm animal welfare in Germany, combining a thorough policy analysis with 20 elite interviews. The results demonstrate how the discourse of inner-European competition has discouraged policymakers to adopt stricter legislation over the past three decades, exemplifying the impeding effect of mutual recognition on member states' policies. Understanding these mechanisms is vital for handling regulatory diversity within integrated markets and offers insights into similar policy areas. This research contributes to the broader issue of national sustainability standards in a globalized world, where collective preferences increasingly collide with economic goals.
{"title":"Enabling free movement but restricting domestic policy space? The price of mutual recognition","authors":"Jasmin Zöllmer, Harald Grethe","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1208","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1208","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Free movement of goods within the EU is guaranteed via mutual recognition: any product lawfully produced in one member state must also be accepted in all other member states. While unleashing economic benefits from trade without regulatory barriers, mutual recognition potentially limits member states' ability to address societal concerns with regard to production conditions. This hypothesis is addressed via the case of farm animal welfare in Germany, combining a thorough policy analysis with 20 elite interviews. The results demonstrate how the discourse of inner-European competition has discouraged policymakers to adopt stricter legislation over the past three decades, exemplifying the impeding effect of mutual recognition on member states' policies. Understanding these mechanisms is vital for handling regulatory diversity within integrated markets and offers insights into similar policy areas. This research contributes to the broader issue of national sustainability standards in a globalized world, where collective preferences increasingly collide with economic goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 3","pages":"380-411"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1208","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140672293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While scholars have investigated how media frame human mobility and securitize irregular border crossings, little research has been dedicated to how European Union (EU) actors are portrayed in media coverage of migration across the Mediterranean. By integrating framing into narrative analysis through the Narrative Policy Framework, our article fills this gap. Specifically, we provide a content analysis of Italian, Maltese, and Spanish newspapers and identify the key narratives underlying the portrayal of specific EU actors. We show that, overall, lack of EU solidarity is the prevalent issue in Italian, Maltese, and Spanish newspapers alike, followed by the alleged inefficiency of EU actors. Accordingly, the EU and its key actors are regularly narrated as either villains, responsible for the crisis and deserting member states in need of solidarity, or as weaklings unable to take effective action. These narratives appear remarkably consistent across countries, over time, and newspapers with different ideological orientation.
{"title":"Who is to blame? Stories of European Union migration governance in Italian, Maltese, and Spanish newspapers","authors":"Martina Abisso, Andrea Terlizzi, Eugenio Cusumano","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1207","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1207","url":null,"abstract":"<p>While scholars have investigated how media frame human mobility and securitize irregular border crossings, little research has been dedicated to how European Union (EU) actors are portrayed in media coverage of migration across the Mediterranean. By integrating framing into narrative analysis through the Narrative Policy Framework, our article fills this gap. Specifically, we provide a content analysis of Italian, Maltese, and Spanish newspapers and identify the key narratives underlying the portrayal of specific EU actors. We show that, overall, lack of EU solidarity is the prevalent issue in Italian, Maltese, and Spanish newspapers alike, followed by the alleged inefficiency of EU actors. Accordingly, the EU and its key actors are regularly narrated as either villains, responsible for the crisis and deserting member states in need of solidarity, or as weaklings unable to take effective action. These narratives appear remarkably consistent across countries, over time, and newspapers with different ideological orientation.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 3","pages":"356-379"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1207","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140378821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent trends toward mechanistic approaches offer a new perspective in understanding policy change and stability. This paper analyzes causal mechanisms leading to unexpected policy change by using punctuated equilibrium theory. As empirical illustration, the paper presents a case study on the introduction of the German mandatory lobbying register in 2021 after a 16-year-long debate. Methodologically, the paper employs process tracing and qualitative content analysis to examine policy documents. We identify a combination of three mechanisms: end of a de-thematization of the policy issue, growing dominance of the issue network favoring stricter transparency regulations, and issue validation through the accumulation of scandals. Thus, policy change results from the descend of policy actors defending the status quo while those advocating for change ascend to an influential position, and actively exploit focusing events as fertile ground for reform. The paper contributes to a refined theoretical understanding of the causal mechanisms of policy change.
{"title":"Identifying causal mechanisms of unexpected policy change: Accumulated punctuation in the field of lobbying transparency in Germany","authors":"Maximilian Schiffers, Sandra Plümer","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1205","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1205","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent trends toward mechanistic approaches offer a new perspective in understanding policy change and stability. This paper analyzes causal mechanisms leading to unexpected policy change by using punctuated equilibrium theory. As empirical illustration, the paper presents a case study on the introduction of the German mandatory lobbying register in 2021 after a 16-year-long debate. Methodologically, the paper employs process tracing and qualitative content analysis to examine policy documents. We identify a combination of three mechanisms: end of a de-thematization of the policy issue, growing dominance of the issue network favoring stricter transparency regulations, and issue validation through the accumulation of scandals. Thus, policy change results from the descend of policy actors defending the status quo while those advocating for change ascend to an influential position, and actively exploit focusing events as fertile ground for reform. The paper contributes to a refined theoretical understanding of the causal mechanisms of policy change.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 3","pages":"334-355"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1205","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140418479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Policy networks can propose solutions (policy communities, and epistemic communities), defend specific instruments (instrument constituencies), and programmatically prioritize change or stability (programmatic groups). This paper focuses on two specific networks that have been present in 30 years of administrative reform in Italy, and it empirically assesses what type of network they are according to their origins, developments over time, membership and motivations to stay together, and role in the policymaking. This comparison, while improving the current understanding of the networking taking place in the Italian administrative reform, shows that if policy networks are very relevant in the policy process, it is analytically more fruitful and empirically more reliable to assess their characteristics empirically, rather than to assume their existence in advance (and make hypotheses on this basis) or to use the concept in a purely metaphorical manner.
{"title":"Assessing the types of policy networks in policymaking: Empirical evidence from administrative reform in Italy","authors":"Giliberto Capano, Eleonora Erittu, Giulio Francisci, Alessandro Natalini","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1204","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1204","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Policy networks can propose solutions (policy communities, and epistemic communities), defend specific instruments (instrument constituencies), and programmatically prioritize change or stability (programmatic groups). This paper focuses on two specific networks that have been present in 30 years of administrative reform in Italy, and it empirically assesses what type of network they are according to their origins, developments over time, membership and motivations to stay together, and role in the policymaking. This comparison, while improving the current understanding of the networking taking place in the Italian administrative reform, shows that if policy networks are very relevant in the policy process, it is analytically more fruitful and empirically more reliable to assess their characteristics empirically, rather than to assume their existence in advance (and make hypotheses on this basis) or to use the concept in a purely metaphorical manner.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 3","pages":"311-333"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140417917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two years of the Covid-19 pandemic caused significantly different death tolls in European countries. Nine of the 30 countries with the highest accumulated fatalities belong to Central and Eastern Europe, although the solidarity of the European Union (EU) provided vaccines for all member states. Using correlation and cluster analysis, this paper identifies the demographic, social, and political factors which can explain the differences. As generally accepted in the literature, the death toll is measured by the number of excess deaths. The examination separates the prevaccination and vaccination periods. While the impact of other factors is also present, vaccination coverage has a salient explanatory role in the excess deaths of the second period. The experiences of the Covid-19 pandemic simultaneously highlight the importance and sociopolitical constraints of health policy at the European level. The analysis confirms that complementary competences between the European and national levels are adequate for the EU health policy.
{"title":"Mind the gap! The role of health policy capacity and vaccination acceptance in European Covid-19 mortality differences","authors":"Beáta Farkas, Tamás Attila Rácz","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1206","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1206","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Two years of the Covid-19 pandemic caused significantly different death tolls in European countries. Nine of the 30 countries with the highest accumulated fatalities belong to Central and Eastern Europe, although the solidarity of the European Union (EU) provided vaccines for all member states. Using correlation and cluster analysis, this paper identifies the demographic, social, and political factors which can explain the differences. As generally accepted in the literature, the death toll is measured by the number of excess deaths. The examination separates the prevaccination and vaccination periods. While the impact of other factors is also present, vaccination coverage has a salient explanatory role in the excess deaths of the second period. The experiences of the Covid-19 pandemic simultaneously highlight the importance and sociopolitical constraints of health policy at the European level. The analysis confirms that complementary competences between the European and national levels are adequate for the EU health policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 2","pages":"225-252"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140432745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nils C. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Fritz Sager, Ilana Schröder
<p>This issue celebrates the tenth volume of the European Policy Analysis (EPA) journal. EPA started in 2015 as the successor to German Policy Studies (GPS), which was edited by Nils C. Bandelow, Fritz Sager, and Klaus Schubert from 2000 to 2013. GPS was a platform for policy process research from the German-speaking countries Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. It published two issues per year, which were often organized by guest editors. Although GPS was founded on the initiative of the Policy Studies Organization (PSO), the journal was published in cooperation with the Southern Public Administration Education Foundation: https://spaef.org/gps.</p><p>GPS included several high-quality and influential contributions and special issues. This was a remarkable achievement by the authors and guest editors as GPS had to be organized without any online submission platform. Reviewers were invited individually by e-mail and there was no support from any editorial team. The journal was not even available on most scientific databases for a long time.</p><p>With the foundation of EPA, the GPS editors at the time not only wanted to professionalize the outlet and to increase its reach, but above all to broaden its focus. The new journal was to provide a platform for all European perspectives on policy process research. The PSO was won over to this idea, as EPA addressed a gap in the PSO's portfolio. In addition to general policy process journals (<i>Policy Studies Journal</i>, <i>Review of Policy Research</i>, and <i>Politics and Policy</i>), the PSO offers topic-specific and region-specific journals. EPA was and is the first and only PSO journal with a European focus.</p><p>Similar to GPS, EPA initially was published only twice a year and concentrated mainly on special issues, which were organized with the support of guest editors. A key factor in the journal's success was the fact that, from the time EPA was founded, a then undergraduate student, Johanna Hornung, was appointed editorial director and was involved in all tasks of the editorial team from the beginning. Since the second issue of the first volume, Peter Biegelbauer served EPA as coeditor in chief until 2017.</p><p>These developments and the support of the PSO motivated both established and emerging scholars of the field to submit their work to EPA. As a result, EPA became one of the most successful journals of the PSO and in 2020 was given the opportunity to move from the PSO platform ipsonet.org to the established scientific publisher Wiley, where it became part of the large PSO portfolio. Wiley also made all older volumes of EPA available on its website.</p><p>In 2020, EPA has been included in Scopus (retroactively for all issues from 2015). Since 2021, we extended EPA to four annual issues. In the same year, EPA was included in the Web of Science, and it received its first impact factor in 2023. Both Scopus and the Web of Science show EPA in their top quartile, with citation scores steadily inc
虽然《全球定位系统》是在政策研究组织(PSO)的倡议下创办的,但该期刊是与南方公共服务教育基金会合作出版的:https://spaef.org/gps.GPS,其中包括一些有影响力的高质量稿件和特刊。这对作者和特约编辑来说是一项了不起的成就,因为《全球定位系统》是在没有任何在线投稿平台的情况下组织的。审稿人都是通过电子邮件单独邀请的,没有任何编辑团队的支持。随着 EPA 的成立,GPS 当时的编辑们不仅希望将这一媒体专业化并扩大其影响范围,更重要的是要拓宽其关注点。新期刊将为欧洲所有政治进程研究视角提供一个平台。PSO 接受了这一想法,因为 EPA 解决了 PSO 业务范围中的一个空白。除了关于一般政策过程的期刊(《政策研究期刊》、《政策研究评论》和《政治与政策》)外,PSO 还提供关于特定主题和地区的期刊。与《全球定位系统》一样,《欧洲政策研究》最初每年只出版两期,主要集中在特刊上,特刊是在客座编辑的支持下组织的。该期刊取得成功的一个关键因素是,在《EPA》创刊之初,当时的大学生约翰娜-霍农(Johanna Hornung)就被任命为编辑主任,并从一开始就参与编辑团队的所有工作。从第一卷第二版开始,彼得-比格尔鲍尔(Peter Biegelbauer)一直担任《EPA》的联合主编,直到 2017 年。这些发展和 PSO 的支持激励着该领域的新兴学者和知名学者向《EPA》投稿。因此,《EPA》成为 PSO 最成功的期刊之一,并在 2020 年有机会从 PSO 平台 ipsonet.org 转到知名的科学出版商 Wiley,成为 PSO 更大产品组合的一部分。2020 年,EPA 被 Scopus 收录(追溯自 2015 年以来的所有期刊)。从 2021 年起,我们将 EPA 扩大到每年四期。同年,EPA 被收录到 Web of Science,并于 2023 年首次获得影响因子。斯科普斯(Scopus)和科学网(Web of Science)均显示《环保行动计划》处于前四分之一,迄今为止引文得分稳步上升。2021年博士毕业后,约翰娜-霍农(Johanna Hornung)晋升为《环保行动计划》的联合主编。从那时起,伊莲娜-施罗德(Ilana Schröder)接替了她编辑主任的职责,并参与了所有编辑流程。克劳斯-舒伯特借此机会退出了管理层。EPA 在发展阶段的主动性和承诺在很大程度上归功于他。从 2021 年起,尼尔斯班德洛(Nils C. Bandelow)、约翰娜-霍农(Johanna Hornung)和伊莲娜-施罗德(Ilana Schröder)也将负责《政策研究评论》(RPR)。与在美国尤为成熟的 RPR 的联系提高了 EPA 在欧洲以外的知名度。现在,EPA 不仅是欧洲研究的平台,也是欧洲课题或采用欧洲方法的国际研究的平台。本期的第一篇文章来自美国大学的学者。Kayla M. Gabehart、Allegra H. Fullerton 和 Christoph H. Stefes(2024 年)运用政策反馈理论(PFT,Mettler 和 SoRelle,2023 年)的视角,分析了德国不同程度的行政(去)集权化如何影响执法。 在后者中,他们使用了 Alfred H. G. G. L. B. 和 Allegra H. Fullerton 的研究方法,分析了国际野生动植物条约以及对官僚权力和策略的影响。对于后者,他们采用了阿尔弗雷德-赫希曼(Alfred Hirschman,1970 年)关于发言权、忠诚和退出之间的区别。他们发现,在权力极度集中的德国联邦州(如勃兰登堡)和权力下放的联邦州(如巴伐利亚和北莱茵-威斯特法伦州),存在同样的不利因素。非正式的应对措施导致低效的体制结构得不到认可和改变。我们的第二项贡献还涉及德国联邦政治进程中特定的多层次挑战。 这凸显了对适应性和吸收性复原力形式的关注,而不是对变革性复原力的关注。西蒙-芬克(Simon Fink)(2023 年)研究了欧盟决策中的其他多层次复杂性,考察了社会经济条件、公众舆论和党派偏好对成员国在部长理事会上就欧盟移民政策所持立场的影响。使用 OLS 和分数对数回归模型,对关于遣返非法居留的第三国国民的指令和关于协调社会保障体系的指令的这些自变量进行了检验。结果表明,虽然社会经济条件对一个国家的政治立场没有显著影响,但党派偏好和公众舆论确实很重要。特别是关于回返的指令受到了公众舆论的压力,而社会保障法规则更多地受到政党对福利国家扩张的立场,特别是最右翼政党的偏好的影响。这突出表明,欧盟成员国的政策偏好可能会根据立法提案的不同而遵循不同的逻辑,然而,立法提案更多地受到各国国内政治的影响,而不是失业率或福利国家类型的影响。
{"title":"Multilevel interdependencies and policy capacity in Europe","authors":"Nils C. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Fritz Sager, Ilana Schröder","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1202","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This issue celebrates the tenth volume of the European Policy Analysis (EPA) journal. EPA started in 2015 as the successor to German Policy Studies (GPS), which was edited by Nils C. Bandelow, Fritz Sager, and Klaus Schubert from 2000 to 2013. GPS was a platform for policy process research from the German-speaking countries Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. It published two issues per year, which were often organized by guest editors. Although GPS was founded on the initiative of the Policy Studies Organization (PSO), the journal was published in cooperation with the Southern Public Administration Education Foundation: https://spaef.org/gps.</p><p>GPS included several high-quality and influential contributions and special issues. This was a remarkable achievement by the authors and guest editors as GPS had to be organized without any online submission platform. Reviewers were invited individually by e-mail and there was no support from any editorial team. The journal was not even available on most scientific databases for a long time.</p><p>With the foundation of EPA, the GPS editors at the time not only wanted to professionalize the outlet and to increase its reach, but above all to broaden its focus. The new journal was to provide a platform for all European perspectives on policy process research. The PSO was won over to this idea, as EPA addressed a gap in the PSO's portfolio. In addition to general policy process journals (<i>Policy Studies Journal</i>, <i>Review of Policy Research</i>, and <i>Politics and Policy</i>), the PSO offers topic-specific and region-specific journals. EPA was and is the first and only PSO journal with a European focus.</p><p>Similar to GPS, EPA initially was published only twice a year and concentrated mainly on special issues, which were organized with the support of guest editors. A key factor in the journal's success was the fact that, from the time EPA was founded, a then undergraduate student, Johanna Hornung, was appointed editorial director and was involved in all tasks of the editorial team from the beginning. Since the second issue of the first volume, Peter Biegelbauer served EPA as coeditor in chief until 2017.</p><p>These developments and the support of the PSO motivated both established and emerging scholars of the field to submit their work to EPA. As a result, EPA became one of the most successful journals of the PSO and in 2020 was given the opportunity to move from the PSO platform ipsonet.org to the established scientific publisher Wiley, where it became part of the large PSO portfolio. Wiley also made all older volumes of EPA available on its website.</p><p>In 2020, EPA has been included in Scopus (retroactively for all issues from 2015). Since 2021, we extended EPA to four annual issues. In the same year, EPA was included in the Web of Science, and it received its first impact factor in 2023. Both Scopus and the Web of Science show EPA in their top quartile, with citation scores steadily inc","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 1","pages":"6-9"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1202","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139937449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}