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}
Scholars agree that digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) pose a political challenge. In this article, we study empirically how different actors in the German political system define AI as a policy problem. We use an original data set of 6421 statements by representatives of political parties, interest groups, scientific experts, and public officials in parliamentary debates, government consultations, and quality newspapers. Through Discourse Network Analysis and quantitative text analyses we show that most actors define AI as technology (innovation) policy and link it to government operations, international cooperation, and macroeconomics. Although they are present, consumer protection, labor, and education seem to be less important policy issues concerning AI. The results imply that the capacity of the national government to reduce problem definition uncertainty and to steer the political agenda is difficult and that most actors focus on technological innovation rather than civil rights-related aspects.
{"title":"Defining artificial intelligence as a policy problem: A discourse network analysis from Germany","authors":"Nicole Lemke, Philipp Trein, Frédéric Varone","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1203","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1203","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Scholars agree that digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) pose a political challenge. In this article, we study empirically how different actors in the German political system define AI as a policy problem. We use an original data set of 6421 statements by representatives of political parties, interest groups, scientific experts, and public officials in parliamentary debates, government consultations, and quality newspapers. Through Discourse Network Analysis and quantitative text analyses we show that most actors define AI as technology (innovation) policy and link it to government operations, international cooperation, and macroeconomics. Although they are present, consumer protection, labor, and education seem to be less important policy issues concerning AI. The results imply that the capacity of the national government to reduce problem definition uncertainty and to steer the political agenda is difficult and that most actors focus on technological innovation rather than civil rights-related aspects.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 2","pages":"162-187"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139857434","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}
This paper investigates variations in infringements of EU rules by substate authorities. The paper tests the effect of structure and actor level variables. First, we test structural factors in terms of the autonomy that substate authorities hold. Second, we test some actor level factors that may also increase transaction costs: autonomy of substate actors, public opinion on the EU and administrative capacity. The results indicate that there is a relationship between the increased autonomy of substate authorities and higher number of infringements. The results also provide support that preference to exercise this autonomy correlates with higher infringements. In addition, the results show that negative public opinion on the EU is strongly correlated to higher numbers of infringements. This suggests that transaction costs associated with multilevel policy implementation and attitudes to the EU are determinants of substate infringements.
{"title":"Infringements of European Union law at the local and regional level across Member States","authors":"Peter Clinton, Javier Arregui","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1201","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1201","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper investigates variations in infringements of EU rules by substate authorities. The paper tests the effect of structure and actor level variables. First, we test structural factors in terms of the autonomy that substate authorities hold. Second, we test some actor level factors that may also increase transaction costs: autonomy of substate actors, public opinion on the EU and administrative capacity. The results indicate that there is a relationship between the increased autonomy of substate authorities and higher number of infringements. The results also provide support that preference to exercise this autonomy correlates with higher infringements. In addition, the results show that negative public opinion on the EU is strongly correlated to higher numbers of infringements. This suggests that transaction costs associated with multilevel policy implementation and attitudes to the EU are determinants of substate infringements.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 2","pages":"188-205"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1201","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139439502","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}
Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic innovation that allows citizens to deliberate about a share of the public budget. Portugal was one of the most influent countries in this field in the last decade, as PB was implemented at multiple levels. However, few studies have made in-depth research on the financial dimensions of PB, which raises interest as to whether and how citizens' voice has had a significant impact on policy-making. To fill in this gap, this article considers the financial asset of local, regional, and national PBs in Portugal up to the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our methodological approach relies on both quantitative data analyzed through Geographical Information Systems and descriptive statistics, and qualitative data retrieved from document analysis. Findings are discussed through four different stages of dissemination in the country, and show that despite significant advancements in this field, impacts in the financial dimensions lay behind expectations.
{"title":"The cost of participation: An analysis of the financial dimensions of participatory budgets in Portugal","authors":"Rodrigo Sartori Bogo, Roberto Falanga","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1200","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1200","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic innovation that allows citizens to deliberate about a share of the public budget. Portugal was one of the most influent countries in this field in the last decade, as PB was implemented at multiple levels. However, few studies have made in-depth research on the financial dimensions of PB, which raises interest as to whether and how citizens' voice has had a significant impact on policy-making. To fill in this gap, this article considers the financial asset of local, regional, and national PBs in Portugal up to the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our methodological approach relies on both quantitative data analyzed through Geographical Information Systems and descriptive statistics, and qualitative data retrieved from document analysis. Findings are discussed through four different stages of dissemination in the country, and show that despite significant advancements in this field, impacts in the financial dimensions lay behind expectations.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"10 2","pages":"279-299"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138948189","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}