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.
{"title":"Between hierarchies and markets: How street-level bureaucratic autonomy leads to policy innovations","authors":"Stéphanie Barral, Ritwick Ghosh","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1178","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1178","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 4","pages":"418-439"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44508214","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}
Colin Knox, Karl O'Connor, Markus Ketola, Paul Carmichael
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.
{"title":"EU PEACE funding: The policy implementation deficit","authors":"Colin Knox, Karl O'Connor, Markus Ketola, Paul Carmichael","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1177","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1177","url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 3","pages":"290-310"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1177","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47535963","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}
<p>This special issue of <i>European Policy Analysis</i> on COVID-19 policies follows two previous ones addressing that topic. The first one was published in the fall 2020 to examine the initial reactions of governments to the shock of the crisis (Colfer, <span>2020</span>), and the second one in fall 2022, to analyze how governance processes had evolved with the prolongation of the crisis (Malandrino & Mavrot, <span>2022</span>). This spring 2023 marks the 3rd year of the pandemic, which gives us even more hindsight to assess the questions raised by one of the most challenging public health events faced by nations worldwide in the recent past. This new special issues hence gathers contributions that address key transversal issues related to pandemic management: how to integrate scientific evidence into crisis management, and whether the inclusion of evidence even guarantees good outcomes. Is there a national administrative style that can help explain the output performance of crisis management? What does policy learning look like when the policy cycle happens within a reduced timeframe and under high political pressure? How legitimate are the policy instruments implemented during the pandemic in the public's eyes? The questions raised in this special issue are key not only to studying the crash test the pandemic has represented for governments and democracies but also to drawing lessons for future crises that wait around the corner. These crises will no doubt share some common characteristic with the COVID-19 pandemic: the need for arbitration between various policy requirements (e.g., somatic and psychological health needs, public health and the economy), the challenge of adopting sustainable governance principles in the general context of political short-termism, finding a balance between decisive public action and the requirement of democratic processes, the integration of scientific evidence into policy-making processes and the necessity of fighting against skepticism (e.g., corona-skepticism, climate-skepticism).</p><p>At a time of returning to normalcy with the relative mitigation of the epidemics and the ending of emergency regimes in most parts of the world, two questions arise: what did the COVID-19 crisis say about political systems from a governance perspective, and how did the crisis add to our reflections from a political science perspective? Regarding the first aspect, the crisis shed light on the possibilities of over and under reactions, as well as on the importance of the level of trust in the government to navigate the pandemic in ways acceptable to citizens (Capano et al., <span>2020</span>). The temporal development of the event also showed effects of policy convergence in the first phase because of the exceptional character of the situation, followed by a diversification in governance paths related to the ways policy feedback affected the political calculus in each country (Sayers et al., <span>2022</span>). A fundamenta
本期《欧洲新冠肺炎政策分析》特刊是在前两期《欧洲新冠肺炎政策分析》特刊的基础上发表的。第一篇发表于2020年秋季,研究各国政府对危机冲击的最初反应(Colfer, 2020),第二篇发表于2022年秋季,分析治理过程如何随着危机的延长而演变(Malandrino &;Mavrot, 2022)。今年春天是2023年大流行的第三个年头,这使我们能够更加后见之明地评估世界各国最近面临的最具挑战性的公共卫生事件之一所带来的问题。因此,这一新的特刊汇集了涉及与大流行管理有关的关键横向问题的文章:如何将科学证据纳入危机管理,以及纳入证据是否甚至保证了良好的结果。是否有一种国家行政风格可以帮助解释危机管理的输出绩效?当政策周期发生在一个缩短的时间框架内,并在巨大的政治压力下,政策学习是什么样子的?在公众眼中,大流行期间实施的政策工具有多合法?本期特刊提出的问题不仅是研究疫情对各国政府和民主国家的冲击测试的关键,也是为即将到来的未来危机吸取教训的关键。毫无疑问,这些危机将与COVID-19大流行具有一些共同特征:需要在各种政策要求(例如,身体和心理健康需要、公共卫生和经济)之间进行仲裁,在政治短期主义的一般背景下采用可持续治理原则所面临的挑战,在决定性的公共行动与民主进程的要求之间找到平衡,将科学证据纳入决策过程,以及必须反对怀疑主义(例如,冠状病毒怀疑主义),climate-skepticism)。在世界大部分地区,随着疫情的相对缓解和紧急状态制度的结束,局势趋于正常,在此之际,出现了两个问题:从治理角度来看,2019冠状病毒病危机对政治制度说明了什么?从政治学角度来看,这场危机对我们的反思有何启发?关于第一个方面,这场危机揭示了反应过度和反应不足的可能性,以及对政府以公民可接受的方式应对疫情的信任程度的重要性(Capano et al., 2020)。由于形势的特殊性质,事件的时间发展也显示出第一阶段政策趋同的影响,随后是与政策反馈影响每个国家政治计算的方式相关的治理路径多样化(Sayers et al., 2022)。在需要使用科学证据来管理这种高度不确定性的危机(在此期间,大量数据受到密切监测)与避免指责政策制定过程技术化的必要性之间产生了根本的紧张关系(Kuhlmann et al., 2022)。在这方面,鉴于民粹主义政府在面对突发公共卫生事件时采取反科学态度的后果,疫情中的民粹主义治理特别引起了学术界的关注(Bayerlein et al., 2021)。更一般地说,还评估了政治制度特征对大流行管理风格的影响。与总统制相比,议会制不太可能引发强烈的政治个性化,鉴于凝聚力和非两极分化对成功的危机管理的重要性,这可能是一项资产(Lecours等人,2021)。人们发现联邦系统遇到了具体的挑战:纵向和横向协调(Schnabel &Hegele, 2012)以及需要在联邦解决方案和地方偏好之间找到平衡(Bandelow et al., 2021)。然而,中央集权体制也面临着政治责任向中央政府集中的独特挑战。此外,这场危机提醒我们,尽管事件已经被框定,但既存在的政策和权力关系也导致了手头的问题(Bergeron et al., 2020)。最后但并非最不重要的是,这场危机表明,我们仍然没有能力解决保健方面的社会不平等问题,这种不平等被定义为基于社会构建的保健资源重新分配的可避免的差距(Aïach &Fassin, 2004)。至于大流行对研究的影响,我们可以说,它使对民主合法性和社会凝聚力等关键问题的研究活跃起来。这场危机使得分析工具和概念得以测试和改进,因为这一事件扰乱了治理常规。 仅举几个例子,COVID-19危机作为一个全球性事件,非常适合进行政策学习和教训总结的比较研究(Zaki &Wayenberg, 2021)。鉴于需要在认知不确定性的情况下部署有效的政策组合,政策设计和工具视角是评估危机治理需求和结果的有效分析视角(Dunlop et al., 2020)。政策网络方法研究了通过提供规范化的互动模式(詹金斯-史密斯等人,2018),网络如何有助于构建对危机的政治反应(Weible等人,2020)。从政策叙事框架的角度来看,2019冠状病毒病大流行及其新政策措施为分析准确、可识别和可操作的叙事如何在制定和实施政策答案方面发挥作用提供了契机(Mintrom &奥康纳,2020)。从多个流的角度来看,大流行病提供了一个机会,观察问题流、政策流和政治流如何结合起来,打开特定的机会窗口,以解决与公共卫生有关的问题(Amri &Logan, 2021),以及更普遍的可持续性。这个清单可能更长,但总的来说,危机提供了研究进入紧急时期、危机在中期延长以及危机后正常化阶段的机会。这些不同的阶段对政策过程的研究非常丰富,必须研究covid -19后实质性政策领域的政策制定,以寻求危机的长期影响(Capano et al., 2022)。本期特刊在这两个层面上都有丰富的学习内容。在一个以证据为基础的政策日益成为口头禅的时代(卡帕诺&;Malandrino, 2022), Kurzer和Ornston(2023)敦促政策制定者在高度不确定性时期谨慎应用科学顾问的建议。他们的贡献旨在解释之前大型研究的结果,这些研究发现,将科学知识纳入政策制定可以减缓对大流行的反应。这篇文章回顾了在丹麦、荷兰和瑞典发生的第一波COVID-19大流行,这三个国家的特点是对科学家的信任度相对较高。然而,在这三个国家,公共卫生机构都忽视了大流行病的严重性和应对措施的紧迫性,从而推迟了采取应对措施的时间。然而,丹麦的情况好于荷兰和瑞典,因COVID-19死亡的人数较低。作者将这种相对良好的表现与政府对国家专家建议失去信任,并因此背离这一建议联系起来。这种机制尤其适用于嵌入社会行动者和观点的新社团主义网络中的国家公共机构。作者认为,这种嵌入性促使国家公共机构采用“更柔和”和更细致的建议,以避免强制和最大限度地达成共识,但这些推荐的措施可能在大流行这样的严重背景下不起作用。此外,这种做法可以延迟采取纠正措施。基于行政风格理论,Casula和Malandrino(2023)分析了意大利COVID-19紧急情况特别专员的案例,重点关注其行政机构在政府应对大流行中发挥关键作用的两个领域的行动,即公共采购和疫苗接种。更具体地说,他们将两种机构的配置与2021年发生的政府更迭进行了比较。本文的理论框架基于公共组织行政风格的功能和位置取向概念(Knill et al., 2019)。虽然高度功能性取向和产出绩效之间的联系可以被理解为更直接和直观,但本文的作者表明,在类似功能取向的条件下,公共组织的位置取向起作用。为了在两种配置中实现特别专员机构的功能定位概念,他们利用其对问题出现、解决方案搜索优化和政策促进变量的贡献。同样,为了分析其位置取向,他们依赖于其支持动员,战略使用正式权力和倡导能力。总而言之,他们的研究为第二代行政风格研究做出了贡献,同时利用该国的政治更替,揭示了不同的行政机器如何以不同的方式面对同一危机。Zaki等人分析了比利时的大流行管理情况。 (2023)在危机情况下调查不同类型
{"title":"Three years of COVID-19 pandemic: Coping with crisis governance in the long term","authors":"Céline Mavrot, Anna Malandrino","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1175","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1175","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This special issue of <i>European Policy Analysis</i> on COVID-19 policies follows two previous ones addressing that topic. The first one was published in the fall 2020 to examine the initial reactions of governments to the shock of the crisis (Colfer, <span>2020</span>), and the second one in fall 2022, to analyze how governance processes had evolved with the prolongation of the crisis (Malandrino & Mavrot, <span>2022</span>). This spring 2023 marks the 3rd year of the pandemic, which gives us even more hindsight to assess the questions raised by one of the most challenging public health events faced by nations worldwide in the recent past. This new special issues hence gathers contributions that address key transversal issues related to pandemic management: how to integrate scientific evidence into crisis management, and whether the inclusion of evidence even guarantees good outcomes. Is there a national administrative style that can help explain the output performance of crisis management? What does policy learning look like when the policy cycle happens within a reduced timeframe and under high political pressure? How legitimate are the policy instruments implemented during the pandemic in the public's eyes? The questions raised in this special issue are key not only to studying the crash test the pandemic has represented for governments and democracies but also to drawing lessons for future crises that wait around the corner. These crises will no doubt share some common characteristic with the COVID-19 pandemic: the need for arbitration between various policy requirements (e.g., somatic and psychological health needs, public health and the economy), the challenge of adopting sustainable governance principles in the general context of political short-termism, finding a balance between decisive public action and the requirement of democratic processes, the integration of scientific evidence into policy-making processes and the necessity of fighting against skepticism (e.g., corona-skepticism, climate-skepticism).</p><p>At a time of returning to normalcy with the relative mitigation of the epidemics and the ending of emergency regimes in most parts of the world, two questions arise: what did the COVID-19 crisis say about political systems from a governance perspective, and how did the crisis add to our reflections from a political science perspective? Regarding the first aspect, the crisis shed light on the possibilities of over and under reactions, as well as on the importance of the level of trust in the government to navigate the pandemic in ways acceptable to citizens (Capano et al., <span>2020</span>). The temporal development of the event also showed effects of policy convergence in the first phase because of the exceptional character of the situation, followed by a diversification in governance paths related to the ways policy feedback affected the political calculus in each country (Sayers et al., <span>2022</span>). A fundamenta","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 2","pages":"96-100"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1175","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46282915","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}
Administrative style is a central concept in public policy and administration research. Despite the developments in the field, less is known about the effect different administrative styles have on policy output. To contribute to filling this gap, the article offers an original framework to explore the link between administrative styles and policy output based on the consolidated distinction between functional and positional orientations as constitutive elements of administrative styles. This framework is applied to an under-investigated case of public organization in the Italian context, that is, the administrative apparatus headed by the Extraordinary Commissioner for the Covid-19 Emergency, to test the general hypothesis that what makes the difference in determining output performance is an administration's positional orientation, not only its functional one. Doing so, the article contributes to “second generation” administrative style research and provides a theoretical and analytical framework to be tested in future cross-national and cross-sectoral comparisons.
{"title":"Exploring the link between administrative styles and policy output: The case of the Italian Extraordinary Commissioner for the Covid-19 Emergency","authors":"Mattia Casula, Anna Malandrino","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1176","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1176","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Administrative style is a central concept in public policy and administration research. Despite the developments in the field, less is known about the effect different administrative styles have on policy output. To contribute to filling this gap, the article offers an original framework to explore the link between administrative styles and policy output based on the consolidated distinction between functional and positional orientations as constitutive elements of administrative styles. This framework is applied to an under-investigated case of public organization in the Italian context, that is, the administrative apparatus headed by the Extraordinary Commissioner for the Covid-19 Emergency, to test the general hypothesis that what makes the difference in determining output performance is an administration's positional orientation, not only its functional one. Doing so, the article contributes to “second generation” administrative style research and provides a theoretical and analytical framework to be tested in future cross-national and cross-sectoral comparisons.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 2","pages":"119-141"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1176","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47185640","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}
Active Labor Market Policies (ALMPs), which include state-funded apprenticeships, have long been used as a way of encouraging unemployed youth into skilled and semiskilled trades. However, new forms of “nonstandard” employment are now dominating young people's experience of the labor market. In fact, unpaid internships are becoming a normal part of a modern curriculum vitae and viewed as a necessary rite of passage for a successful school-to-work transfer, especially in the middle-class professions. Through the use of freedom of information requests, policy documents, evaluation reports, and semistructured interviews, this paper examines the role of unpaid internships in shaping the four most recent ALMPs targeted at Irish youth since the Great Recession (2008). It theorizes that the increased prevalence of unpaid internships in the entry-level jobs market leads to Irish policymakers designing youth unemployment ALMPs based on a private-sector unpaid internship model. This paper will first situate youth unemployment policy within the literature on ALMPs and unpaid internships. It will then combine process tracing as a within-case research method with a comparative case study of the four ALMPs. In conclusion, this paper finds that Irish youth unemployment policy designed during periods of economic crisis tends to prioritize the needs of host organizations and mirror employment norms established through unpaid internships. Conversely, during periods of economic growth, the Irish youth unemployment policy reverts to a more regulated model that protects the entry-level jobs market. Furthermore, this paper recommends that European states should prohibit the use of unpaid internships to avoid further entrenching precarious and discriminatory work patterns.
{"title":"Trading labor for experience: The role of unpaid internships in shaping Active Labor Market Policies in Ireland since the Great Recession","authors":"Jonathan Arlow","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1171","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1171","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Active Labor Market Policies (ALMPs), which include state-funded apprenticeships, have long been used as a way of encouraging unemployed youth into skilled and semiskilled trades. However, new forms of “nonstandard” employment are now dominating young people's experience of the labor market. In fact, unpaid internships are becoming a normal part of a modern curriculum vitae and viewed as a necessary rite of passage for a successful school-to-work transfer, especially in the middle-class professions. Through the use of freedom of information requests, policy documents, evaluation reports, and semistructured interviews, this paper examines the role of unpaid internships in shaping the four most recent ALMPs targeted at Irish youth since the Great Recession (2008). It theorizes that the increased prevalence of unpaid internships in the entry-level jobs market leads to Irish policymakers designing youth unemployment ALMPs based on a private-sector unpaid internship model. This paper will first situate youth unemployment policy within the literature on ALMPs and unpaid internships. It will then combine process tracing as a within-case research method with a comparative case study of the four ALMPs. In conclusion, this paper finds that Irish youth unemployment policy designed during periods of economic crisis tends to prioritize the needs of host organizations and mirror employment norms established through unpaid internships. Conversely, during periods of economic growth, the Irish youth unemployment policy reverts to a more regulated model that protects the entry-level jobs market. Furthermore, this paper recommends that European states should prohibit the use of unpaid internships to avoid further entrenching precarious and discriminatory work patterns.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 3","pages":"311-336"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1171","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45552608","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}
This comparative paper adds to the literature by exploring the connection between policy entrepreneurship and collaboration among street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) in two countries. We asked if SLBs, as policy entrepreneurs, promote collaborative efforts in their work. If so, in what ways? The study was based on qualitative research and in-depth semistructured interviews with 20 SLBs in social services in Israel and Germany. Our findings suggest that as policy entrepreneurs, SLBs use diverse ways of working together, and a higher level of policy change demands a higher level of collaboration. We offer three generic types of SLB policy entrepreneurs: collaborative policy entrepreneurs, collaborative-coordinator policy entrepreneurs, and coordinator-cooperative entrepreneurs. We suggest administrative cultures and policy styles may shed light on the presence of types of SLB policy entrepreneurs.
{"title":"Street-level bureaucrats as policy entrepreneurs and collaborators: Findings from Israel and Germany","authors":"Lihi Lahat, Tanja Klenk, Noga Pitowsky-Nave","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1173","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1173","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This comparative paper adds to the literature by exploring the connection between policy entrepreneurship and collaboration among street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) in two countries. We asked if SLBs, as policy entrepreneurs, promote collaborative efforts in their work. If so, in what ways? The study was based on qualitative research and in-depth semistructured interviews with 20 SLBs in social services in Israel and Germany. Our findings suggest that as policy entrepreneurs, SLBs use diverse ways of working together, and a higher level of policy change demands a higher level of collaboration. We offer three generic types of SLB policy entrepreneurs: collaborative policy entrepreneurs, collaborative-coordinator policy entrepreneurs, and coordinator-cooperative entrepreneurs. We suggest administrative cultures and policy styles may shed light on the presence of types of SLB policy entrepreneurs.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 4","pages":"397-417"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1173","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42033440","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 national policy styles have (re)gained academic attention in recent comparative public policy work, the concept still needs a widely accepted operationalization that can allow the collection and analysis of data across contexts while steering away from construct validity threats. We build on Tosun and Howlett's (2022) work and employ a mixed-methods approach, which relies on exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis. We put forth an operationalization, using Bertelsmann's Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) as proxies, that achieves conceptual clarity and distinctiveness, informational robustness, and statistical power. Ultimately, we construct two composite indicators—mode of problem-solving and inclusiveness—calculate them in 41 countries and present policy style classifications based on their combinations. We report the distribution of countries across four policy styles (administrative, managerial, accommodative, adversarial) and conclude with an analysis of the clusters, assessments of robustness, and comparison with other national policy style classification schemes.
{"title":"Advancing the operationalization of national policy styles","authors":"Nikolaos Zahariadis, Vassilis Karokis-Mavrikos, Theofanis Exadaktylos, Alexandros Kyriakidis, Jörgen Sparf, Evangelia Petridou","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1172","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1172","url":null,"abstract":"<p>While national policy styles have (re)gained academic attention in recent comparative public policy work, the concept still needs a widely accepted operationalization that can allow the collection and analysis of data across contexts while steering away from construct validity threats. We build on Tosun and Howlett's (2022) work and employ a mixed-methods approach, which relies on exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis. We put forth an operationalization, using Bertelsmann's Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) as proxies, that achieves conceptual clarity and distinctiveness, informational robustness, and statistical power. Ultimately, we construct two composite indicators—mode of problem-solving and inclusiveness—calculate them in 41 countries and present policy style classifications based on their combinations. We report the distribution of countries across four policy styles (administrative, managerial, accommodative, adversarial) and conclude with an analysis of the clusters, assessments of robustness, and comparison with other national policy style classification schemes.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 3","pages":"200-218"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1172","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48561908","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}
Accessible housing is essential for disabled and elderly people with physical restraints to live independently. In reality, however, there is a considerable lack of accessible housing in Germany. While investigating the reasons for this insufficient supply, this article discusses the underlying policy mix and scrutinizes German accessible housing politics. Based on 50 semi-structured interviews in the two states Saxony-Anhalt and Hesse, it identifies the weak political influence of disability lobbyists as the primary reason. Lacking structural, organizational, and institutional power, they do not get access to decision-makers in housing politics but are labeled as social policy actors. On the other hand, housing and building industries have considerable resources to push their housing policy agenda. Nevertheless, the empirical findings clearly show the challenging endeavor of integrating social and building policies in accessible housing while contributing to the overarching understanding of politics in minor policy fields.
{"title":"Mind the housing inclusion gap: The voice of people with disabilities in German housing politics","authors":"Melanie Slavici","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1170","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1170","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accessible housing is essential for disabled and elderly people with physical restraints to live independently. In reality, however, there is a considerable lack of accessible housing in Germany. While investigating the reasons for this insufficient supply, this article discusses the underlying policy mix and scrutinizes German accessible housing politics. Based on 50 semi-structured interviews in the two states Saxony-Anhalt and Hesse, it identifies the weak political influence of disability lobbyists as the primary reason. Lacking structural, organizational, and institutional power, they do not get access to decision-makers in housing politics but are labeled as social policy actors. On the other hand, housing and building industries have considerable resources to push their housing policy agenda. Nevertheless, the empirical findings clearly show the challenging endeavor of integrating social and building policies in accessible housing while contributing to the overarching understanding of politics in minor policy fields.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 3","pages":"271-289"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1170","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46887212","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>The EPA editorial team wishes our readers, contributors, and supporters a Happy New Year 2023! We are glad to present you this year's first issue of European Policy Analysis which comprises four empirical articles that investigate the political framing, actors, and effects of global issues. These include environmental protection, animal welfare, and migration on the national and supranational levels. The papers present different approaches to study European public policy (Saurugger, <span>2013</span>), including a focus on institutions and discourses.</p><p>In the opening article, Graziano and Domorenok (<span>2023</span>) apply the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF, Jones & McBeth, <span>2010</span>; Shanahan et al., <span>2017</span>) to investigate how the rather controversial European Climate Law (ECL) was passed in a short time after its first proposal by the European Commission in March 2020. Taking into account political preferences, arguments, and involved actors, the paper examines the strategic use of policy narratives and associated power dynamics of EU institutions. The authors conceptualize two research propositions considering competing EU logics (supranational vs. intergovernmental) and NPF components (settings, moral, plot, characters). These propositions are empirically tested with qualitative text analyses of EU institutions' documents and debates during the ECL decision-making process. The results show how the European Commission, presenting itself as the main protagonist and pro-active hero of EU climate policy, strategically constructed and promoted the supranational scenario in ECL discussions. With the support of the European Parliament, the Commission successfully pushed its proposed policy solution against the European Council. The Council, also stressing its importance and leadership, presented positions related to both scenarios but did not succeed with this fragmented narrative and, finally, could not compete with the Commission and the majority of the Parliament. By elaborating on the so far understudied power dimension of narratives and its role in the policy process, the study by Graziano and Domorenok theoretically and empirically enhances NPF scholarship.</p><p>The second paper of this issue by Hårstad and Vik (<span>2023</span>) continues the discussion on political narratives with a study of political parties' framing of farm animal welfare policies in Norway. Building on literature on party political discourses in animal welfare policy (e.g., Vogeler, <span>2019</span>) and institutional theory (e.g., Schmidt, <span>2010</span>), the authors analyze how parties frame problems and solutions and how this relates to the change and stability of Norwegian farm animal welfare policy. The research design combines qualitative in-depth interviews with representatives of Norwegian parliamentary parties and content analyses of party programs. Four main themes were identified that contrast primarily between left-wing/
美国环保署编辑团队祝我们的读者、撰稿人和支持者2023年新年快乐!我们很高兴向您介绍今年的第一期《欧洲政策分析》,其中包括四篇实证文章,探讨了全球问题的政治框架、行动者和影响。这些问题包括环境保护、动物福利以及国家和超国家层面的移民问题。这些论文提出了研究欧洲公共政策的不同方法(Saurugger, 2013),包括对制度和话语的关注。在开篇文章中,Graziano和Domorenok(2023)运用叙事政策框架(NPF, Jones &McBeth, 2010;Shanahan et al., 2017)调查了颇具争议的《欧洲气候法》(ECL)是如何在欧盟委员会于2020年3月首次提出提案后的短时间内通过的。考虑到政治偏好、争论和涉及的行动者,本文考察了欧盟机构的政策叙事和相关权力动态的战略使用。作者将两个研究命题概念化,考虑竞争的欧盟逻辑(超国家与政府间)和NPF组件(设置,道德,情节,人物)。通过对欧盟机构的文件和ECL决策过程中的辩论进行定性文本分析,对这些命题进行了实证检验。研究结果表明,欧盟委员会作为欧盟气候政策的主角和积极主动的英雄,如何在ECL讨论中战略性地构建和促进超国家情景。在欧洲议会的支持下,欧盟委员会成功地将其提出的政策解决方案推向了欧洲理事会。理事会还强调其重要性和领导作用,提出了与这两种情况有关的立场,但这种支离破碎的叙述没有成功,最后无法与委员会和议会的大多数竞争。Graziano和Domorenok的研究从理论上和经验上加强了NPF的研究,通过阐述迄今为止尚未得到充分研究的叙事的权力维度及其在政策过程中的作用。该问题的第二篇论文由ha<s:1> rstad和Vik(2023)继续讨论政治叙事,研究了挪威政党对农场动物福利政策的框架。基于动物福利政策中政党政治话语的文献(例如,Vogeler, 2019)和制度理论(例如,Schmidt, 2010),作者分析了政党如何构建问题和解决方案,以及这与挪威农场动物福利政策的变化和稳定之间的关系。研究设计结合了对挪威议会政党代表的定性深入访谈和政党计划的内容分析。确定了四个主要主题,主要是左翼/绿党和右翼/保守党之间的对比。这些主题包括农场动物福利作为农民的个人问题与挪威农业的结构性问题的框架;了解工业化是导致动物福利不佳的原因,以及优先考虑小型农场的相关解决方案;支持市场解决方案,例如提高证明动物福利的农民产品的价格;理解公众辩论的两极分化和情绪化才是真正的问题。最后,该研究得出结论,尽管公众对动物福利的关注及其在政治议程上的地位日益突出,但政党对实际政策变化的主动性有限。这可以解释为支离破碎的政治格局,那些支持变革的行动者的政治权力较小,以及总体上强调保持挪威已经很好的现状。随后的两篇论文继续这期的全球政治问题主题,研究移民政策及其与欧盟政策制定和福利国家的关系。Krotký(2023)对2014年至2019年欧洲议会的移民话语进行了分析,有助于解决这一问题。作者对36项人类安全言论行为进行了批判性话语分析,以调查欧洲议会议员(MEPs)如何使接受移民、难民和寻求庇护者合法化。理论上,该分析建立在Van Leeuwen(2008)提出的正当性范畴,即授权、道德评价、合理化和神话,以及Kaldor等人(2007)提出的五项人类安全原则的基础上。结果表明,道德合法化,尤其是道德抽象化及其对受害者身份的提及,是大多数政党使移民接受合法化的最主要叙事策略。另一个突出的合法化战略是(工具性)合理化,它强调需要采取行动解决“移徙危机”。 “授权”一词侧重于欧盟保护人权的责任,而“神话”一词则意味着故事和未来场景的创造,它们部分与道德合法化结合使用,但在欧洲议会的移民话语中起着次要作用。这项研究进一步表明,所有五项人类安全原则如何隐含地反映在欧洲议会接受移民的合法性中。然而,有人认为,其中一些话语策略再现了“排斥实践的语言”,例如,对较易受伤害的移民群体进行分类和优先排序。Römer(2023)将移民政策的研究扩展到宏观层面,并对移民在短期和长期内如何影响福利国家进行定量分析。她通过考虑社会支出、政策慷慨、两个不同的子政策领域和时间动态,为这样的研究体系做出了贡献。Römer使用了21个经合组织国家从1980年到2010年的汇总时间序列分析。对于因变量,分析侧重于单位GDP的社会福利支出和与失业救济和公共养老金相关的政策慷慨度。移民是作为一个国家在不同时期的净移民来运作的。包括各种控制变量,如失业、通货膨胀、政治指标、限制性移民政策和人口统计数据,以排除其他解释。作者采用了多种通用误差校正模型(ECM),允许测试短期和长期的影响。分析显示,短期内净移民与社会支出之间存在显著的负相关关系。从长期来看,这种关系没有可靠的结果。此外,有证据表明移民与政策慷慨之间存在正相关关系,特别是在养老金福利方面。移民对各国财政平衡的这种微小总体影响,挑战了移民对福利国家构成威胁的通常框架。作者将这些结果与之前的理论讨论进行了结论性解释。我们很高兴向您介绍今年《欧洲政策分析》杂志的第一期内容,其中包括四篇实证文章,调查了全球问题的政治框架、行动者与影响。研究内容包括环境保护、动物福利、以及国家和超国家层面的移民。(Saurugger, 2013),[中文],[中文]。保罗·格拉齐亚诺·叶卡捷琳娜·多莫雷诺克(2022)McBeth, 2010;沙纳et al ., 2017)来调查颇具争议的“欧洲气候法”(ECL)是如何在欧盟委员会于2020年3月首次提出该法案后不久便被批准的。考虑到政治偏好,论点和相关行动者,文章分析了政策叙事的战略性使用和欧盟机构的相关权力动态。作者将两个研究命题概念化,考量了相互竞争的欧盟逻辑(超国家逻辑和政府间逻辑)与NPF的组成部分(背景,道德,情节,角色)。“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”结果表明,将自身描述为欧盟气候政策主角和积极主动的英雄形象的欧盟委员会如何在ECL讨论中战略性地建构和推动超国家情景。在欧洲议会的支持下,欧盟委员会成功地将其拟议的政策解决方案推向了欧洲理事会。欧洲理事会也强调其重要性和领导力,提出了与这两种情景相关的立场,但这种碎片化的叙事并未取得成功,并最终无法与欧盟委员会以及多数的欧洲议会相竞争。通过阐述迄今为止未被充分研究的叙事权力维度及其在政策过程中的作用,格拉齐亚诺和Domorenok的研究在理论上和实证上加强了NPF学术研究。本期收录的第二篇论文由雷·m·b·哈尔斯塔和Jostein维克(2022)撰写,文章继续探讨了政治叙事,研究了挪威政党对农场动物福利政策的建构。基于动物福利政策中的政党话语文献(例如,沃格尔,2018)和制度理论(例如,施密特,2010),作者分析了政党如何建构问题和解决方案,以及这如何有关于挪威农场动物福利政策的变革与稳定。研究设计结合了对挪威议会政党代表的定性深度访谈和对政党计划的内容分析。识别了四个主要主题,这些主题在左翼/绿党和右翼/保守党之间形成对比。这些主题包括:将农场动物福利建构为农民的个人问题与挪威农业的结构性问题;了解工业化是动物福利不佳的一个原因,以及优先考虑小型农场的相关解决方案;支持市场解决方案,例如提高那些认证动
{"title":"Political framing, actors, and effects of global issues","authors":"Nils C. Bandelow, Johanna Hornung, Fritz Sager, Ilana Schröder","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1169","DOIUrl":"10.1002/epa2.1169","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The EPA editorial team wishes our readers, contributors, and supporters a Happy New Year 2023! We are glad to present you this year's first issue of European Policy Analysis which comprises four empirical articles that investigate the political framing, actors, and effects of global issues. These include environmental protection, animal welfare, and migration on the national and supranational levels. The papers present different approaches to study European public policy (Saurugger, <span>2013</span>), including a focus on institutions and discourses.</p><p>In the opening article, Graziano and Domorenok (<span>2023</span>) apply the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF, Jones & McBeth, <span>2010</span>; Shanahan et al., <span>2017</span>) to investigate how the rather controversial European Climate Law (ECL) was passed in a short time after its first proposal by the European Commission in March 2020. Taking into account political preferences, arguments, and involved actors, the paper examines the strategic use of policy narratives and associated power dynamics of EU institutions. The authors conceptualize two research propositions considering competing EU logics (supranational vs. intergovernmental) and NPF components (settings, moral, plot, characters). These propositions are empirically tested with qualitative text analyses of EU institutions' documents and debates during the ECL decision-making process. The results show how the European Commission, presenting itself as the main protagonist and pro-active hero of EU climate policy, strategically constructed and promoted the supranational scenario in ECL discussions. With the support of the European Parliament, the Commission successfully pushed its proposed policy solution against the European Council. The Council, also stressing its importance and leadership, presented positions related to both scenarios but did not succeed with this fragmented narrative and, finally, could not compete with the Commission and the majority of the Parliament. By elaborating on the so far understudied power dimension of narratives and its role in the policy process, the study by Graziano and Domorenok theoretically and empirically enhances NPF scholarship.</p><p>The second paper of this issue by Hårstad and Vik (<span>2023</span>) continues the discussion on political narratives with a study of political parties' framing of farm animal welfare policies in Norway. Building on literature on party political discourses in animal welfare policy (e.g., Vogeler, <span>2019</span>) and institutional theory (e.g., Schmidt, <span>2010</span>), the authors analyze how parties frame problems and solutions and how this relates to the change and stability of Norwegian farm animal welfare policy. The research design combines qualitative in-depth interviews with representatives of Norwegian parliamentary parties and content analyses of party programs. Four main themes were identified that contrast primarily between left-wing/","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 1","pages":"6-8"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1169","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41282123","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}