European Policy Analysis最新文献

Economic populism was once recognized as a paradigmatic understanding of the boom-and-bust cycles of Latin America. By now, the concept has lost its analytical strength and academic attractiveness. Nevertheless, policy analysts cannot neglect the supply side analysis of contemporary populism, that is, what populists actually do once elected into government. Adopting and operationalizing the ideational definition of populism, the article identifies three major consequences of populist incumbency: (1) the inclination of populists to embark on redistributive policies favoring “our” people against “others,” (2) their critical attitude toward autonomous organizations, professionals, and institutions, and (3) their antagonistic relationship with the competitive market mechanism. The article demonstrates that populism is no longer about myopic and irresponsible policies; instead, populists tend to disregard the institutional constraints of economic decision making.

The last decade we saw an increasing academic, policy, and professional interest in the use of co-creation to tackle societal challenges. Most research focused on qualitative analysis of case studies. This led to an understanding that co-creation is essential for social innovation. We started this paper by analyzing co-creation strategies ex ante to understand how EU-funded consortia intend to tackle societal challenges. By quantitatively analyzing 300 EU projects and qualitatively analyzing the Horizon2020 “co-creation for growth and inclusion” call, our research revealed four different types of consortia. We characterized these types by the coordinators and dubbed them, respectively, as research led, government led, enterprise led, and other led. These consortia were quite different in terms of diversity and preferred partners. We also distinguished three distinct co-creation strategies that are focused on inclusion of stakeholders, the outcome, or tool development. We discovered that these strategies are not linked to types of consortia or projects, but only to the call text. We therefore conclude that the policy design of Horizon2020 led to a program that aims to stimulate innovation, but has become too rigid to be able to do so.

This paper aims to identify the processes that lead to the establishment of public-private partnerships (PPPs) with a focus on the financial and policy incentives of the actors involved. To this end, it applies the Multiple Streams Framework to a qualitative case study to answer the following research question: are actors of PPPs for innovation motivated due to financial incentives or can they be policy driven? Although the fiscal context plays an important role in our case, the study shows that policy goals, such as providing infrastructure or public services and promoting innovation can be the main drivers for establishing a PPP. These findings offer a theoretical and practical contribution to analyze PPPs as a phenomenon. First, we establish a theoretical framework of possible incentives for actors in PPPs and, secondly, provide new insights into the PPP discussion in the public administration literature.

This article draws on the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to analyze the recent debates over Moscow's public transport policy. Despite a proliferation of NPF implementations in recent years, applications in authoritarian institutional settings remain rare. We seek to fill this gap by examining how the actors combine narrative strategies, characters, and plots to advocate their vision of public transport development in Moscow. To this end, this study tests NPF meso-level hypotheses on narrative strategies and their connections with plots and characters used in the context of Russian electoral authoritarian regime. The results show that the NPF hypotheses are applicable for the analysis of policy debates in an authoritarian context. While the governmental coalition uses an angel shift strategy—focusing on heroes, beneficiaries, and stories of control—to contain the scope of conflict, the opposing coalition implies a devil shift strategy with a specific attention to villains, victims, and different plots to expand the scope of conflict.

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) has ignited a remarkably active research community, one of its main contributions being distinct narrative elements—including settings, characters, and plots. Yet, while the plot constitutes a core element of narrativity, it has received less attention vis-à-vis other narrative components. Existing classifications of plots have been proven to possess a great ability to capture “universal” policy stories, but not the specific variations of different types of policies. This article presents a typology of plots by linking their universal and policy-specific themes, thereby theorizing from Lowi's seminal typology of regulatory, distributive, and redistributive policies. Empirically, it focuses on the political communication of Germany's policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy narratives were mined from Twitter and from governmental press conferences (March–June 2020). The qualitative NPF analysis demonstrates that the identified plots—restricting-to-control, liberating-to-promote, providing-to-promote, giving-to-give, and giving-to-promote—can grasp different regulatory, distributive, and redistributive policies as well as their variety.

We compare the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and the Institutional Grammar Tool (IGT). Given the focus of this special issue on the NPF, we first theorize how the IGT can contribute to the development of NPF categories, but also how the former gains conceptual leverage from the latter. We argue that it is useful to consider jointly NPF and IGT as this expands the benefit of NPF usage for policy researchers—uncovering not only the stories policy actors tell but also what these stories mean in terms of institutional statements. We provide a demonstration of how the conversation between these two policy lenses may develop by analyzing original data on the design of consultation procedures in the European Union, Finland, Ireland, and Malta.

Socioeconomic inequalities in health have been an issue in all European countries since the publication of the “Black Report” in the United Kingdom in 1980. However, data show that nowadays there are important socioeconomic health inequalities within EU countries. The purpose of this paper is to review EU-15 government reports that address socioeconomic inequalities in health. We reviewed 101 reports. The pioneer countries in analyzing this topic have a Beveridge-type health system, and they are the leaders over time. The top socioeconomic indicators used are education level, social class, deprivation level of the area, and nationality. Given the current COVID-19 pandemic situation and its economic consequences, EU governments need to continue monitoring the existing inequalities in health and to act transversely in all public policies.

One of the European Union (EU) institutions’ responses to the alleged “democratic deficit” in the EU is the introduction of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI). The ECI provides an agenda-setting tool accessible to different advocacy groups. This study investigates the narrative strategies of ECI organizers to mobilize citizens across the EU. Which storytelling characteristics are present in the policy narratives used by ECIs? To address this question theoretically, we rely on the Narrative Policy Framework. Empirically, we examine 59 ECIs registered between 2012 and 2020. The analysis concentrates on three dimensions of policy narratives: the mentioning of (i) story characters and (ii) cost-benefit frames as forms of narrative strategy to increase public attention, and (iii) evidence as a means of persuasion. Our findings show that ECIs predominantly make use of the devil shift in their policy narratives and use cost-benefit frames and evidence to expand the scope of conflict.