European Policy Analysis最新文献

How do external macrolevel factors encourage bureaucrats to become policy entrepreneurs? And what are their organizational goals in pursuing entrepreneurship? Contrary to traditional public choice literature on bureaucracy that sees the latter as change-resistant, this study stresses that bureaucracies can and do change; they are not as insulated from reformist pressure. In this study, we lay the conditions under which change occurs, making bureaucrats—policy entrepreneurs. We argue that: (1) bureaucratic inefficiency, leading to (2) societal pressure as expressed by public opinion, and consequently to (3) pressure from potential new providers offering bottom-up competition, will encourage bureaucrats to turn to policy entrepreneurship strategies. In addition, we assert that their goals in doing so are to modify and design efficient services, while protecting their monopoly on service provision. We test these claims by analyzing the state-religion dynamics in Israel, and specifically the case of the 2021 kosher food inspection reform.

What are the differences between policy entrepreneurship and street-level policy entrepreneurship? The research on street-level policy entrepreneurship is still in its infancy, yet in the past few years, it has received greater research attention. This article systematically reviews the current research published on this topic and compares it to previous findings on policy entrepreneurs. Our findings provide an analysis of street-level policy entrepreneurs' characteristics, motivations, traits, and strategies, differentiating types of street-level bureaucrats (SLBs). We also find three new strategies unique to SLBs: consistency over time, learning from others, and seeking legitimacy. We conclude by identifying the main differences between traditional entrepreneurs and street-level entrepreneurs and providing suggestions for further research.

The article discusses the role of parliamentary oversight of emergency measures and policies in increasing democratic resilience and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The study on the Finnish Parliament is conducted by analyzing the statements of the Constitutional Law Committee, whose role is to conduct a parliamentary constitutional review of governmental bills. The main focus of the analysis is on the Committee's reviews of the constitutionality of the emergency measures and the procedures of law drafting. The research indicates that the committee considered the restrictions and exceptions of fundamental rights as proportional and necessary to prevent the overburdening of the healthcare system in most cases. However, the justifications for the emergency measures were often lacking, and the parliament's right to receive information was compromised. These deficits undermined the Parliament's capacity to oversee emergency measures and policies. The parliamentary constitutional review during the pandemic could still serve a critical complementary function by protecting fundamental rights and democratic values.

The understanding of resilience, and how the ability to respond or adjust to new situations can be implemented and evaluated, gained prominence in public policy. This study examines how European Union (EU) member states plan to support cultural and creative sectors (CCSs) within the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) of the NextGenerationEU Program and how they plan the CCSs to contribute to the grand challenges of our time. Using mixed methods, it is found that the understanding of how structural deficiencies in CCSs can be addressed is not systematic and not all countries invest to make the cultural infrastructure more future-proof. Neither the budgets nor the mode of resilience (absorption, adaptation, and transformation) exposed in the plans consistently correlates with how countries intend to address key impact pillars. Countries with larger CCSs are more prone to transformation. The theoretical contribution lies in the elaboration of the concept of “ex ante resilience.”

This paper analyzes through qualitative and quantitative analysis of European Union (EU) policy documents the framing of EU policy on energy-efficient buildings from the 1970s to 2022. We find that it has been framed in different ways over the decades and the framing has expanded to include more and more benefits. Through this expansion, energy efficiency has been linked to other policy areas, such as security, environmental, economic, and social policy. The shifts in framing can be seen as responses to external events. The expansion can also be explained using two metaphors to analyze how the framing differs depending on political positioning. One where policy is seen as a Swiss knife, able to solve multiple political problems, and one where policy is seen as a Trojan horse, where new policy domains are snuck in by policymakers disguising it as energy efficiency policy to increase EU competency in relation to national governments.

Energiewende (energy transition) has become a worldwide critical challenge. Unlike extensive literature that explains Germany's energy transition focusing on federal actors, this study analyzes the role of Schleswig-Holstein in federal wind energy policy-making. Schleswig-Holstein was an economically poor state governed by the Christian Democratic Union from 1950 to 1988 and supported nuclear energy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By integrating the notions of “leaders,” “pioneers,” and “entrepreneurs,” and exploring the relationship between these change agents and “followers,” this study elucidates a nuanced classification of actors. An examination of proceedings of the federal assembly, the second chamber, and the Schleswig-Holstein state parliament revealed that Schleswig-Holstein changed its role from a potential veto-coalition player in the 1970s to a constructive pusher of repowering older windmills in the 2009 Renewable Energy Act revision. This study also highlights that leaders, pioneers, and entrepreneurs do not necessarily overlap and do capture different change agents.

Although street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) play a key role in the implementation of market-based instruments (MBIs), their participation is widely understudied. This paper addresses this blind spot by engaging the concept of street-level bureaucratic policy entrepreneurship. Using the case of conservation banking, a market-based environmental policy in the United States, we explore why this novel instrument has only been adopted in a handful of jurisdictions. We examine both non-adoption and adoption of conservation banking to find that SLBs are likely to engage in such entrepreneurial acts when a new policy form is particularly useful in legitimizing regulatory enforcement. Implementing a MBI is, however, not straightforward. Organizational conditions can restrain SLB autonomy to implement MBIs, preferring instead to persist with baseline policies, which further underscores the importance of SLB risk-taking behavior. SLBs must strategically straddle their unique position between the market and the hierarchy to enroll different actors into the new policy arrangement, all within dynamic political–economic conditions.

This article explores the intersection of policy implementation, conflict/peacebuilding, and the role of the EU PEACE program in Northern Ireland (NI). Conflict societies see a great investment of external funds, attempting to promote conflict resolution. Specifically, this article analyses the fourth wave of such funding in NI to examine why the EU PEACE program has not fully brought about its intended policy outcomes. Using Matland's conflict-ambiguity model of policy implementation, we identify how EU funds can be skewed to support local political interests. Simultaneously, the EU PEACE program continues to adhere to strict implementation criteria that makes little sense given the local context. Therefore, contrary to its objectives, the implementation of EU funding can compound rather than ameliorate divisions in postconflict NI. Instead of prescribing strict implementation criteria, EU policy could focus on improving the administrative capacity and discretion of local administration in devising locally relevant implementation strategies.