启蒙、政治化或仅仅是装点门面?保加利亚的欧洲化和决策证据的使用

IF 3.8 3区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Policy Sciences Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1007/s11077-024-09527-8
Denitsa Marchevska
{"title":"启蒙、政治化或仅仅是装点门面?保加利亚的欧洲化和决策证据的使用","authors":"Denitsa Marchevska","doi":"10.1007/s11077-024-09527-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evidence-based policy making (EBPM) has been a key pillar of the better regulation agenda of the European Union. However, the extent to which it has genuinely impacted domestic policy making practices has remained largely unexplored. This study sets out to address this gap by focusing on EBPM adoption in settings with historically weak culture of technocratic rationality. To this end, the article proposes a novel analytical framework combining the concept of Europeanisation with insights from the scholarship on knowledge and evidence utilisation. The framework is then applied to the “least likely” case of Bulgaria and its National Climate and Energy Plan for 2021–2030. The article draws on 26 semi-structured interviews to analyse the use of different types of evidence in the Plan’s formulation. The study finds that genuine adoption of EBPM practices remains relatively low with evidence serving predominantly a perfunctory role. In contrast, instrumental and conceptual uses of evidence remain rare. Still, the findings point at the possibility, albeit limited, for gradual Europeanisation and uptake of evidence-based practices even in highly unfavourable conditions. This can be facilitated by a prolonged exposure to evidence-based practices, targeted EU pressure, the establishment of forums facilitating evidence exchange and the presence of “evidence-friendly” individuals within the civil service.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Enlightenment, politicisation or mere window dressing? Europeanisation and the use of evidence for policy making in Bulgaria\",\"authors\":\"Denitsa Marchevska\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11077-024-09527-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Evidence-based policy making (EBPM) has been a key pillar of the better regulation agenda of the European Union. However, the extent to which it has genuinely impacted domestic policy making practices has remained largely unexplored. This study sets out to address this gap by focusing on EBPM adoption in settings with historically weak culture of technocratic rationality. To this end, the article proposes a novel analytical framework combining the concept of Europeanisation with insights from the scholarship on knowledge and evidence utilisation. The framework is then applied to the “least likely” case of Bulgaria and its National Climate and Energy Plan for 2021–2030. The article draws on 26 semi-structured interviews to analyse the use of different types of evidence in the Plan’s formulation. The study finds that genuine adoption of EBPM practices remains relatively low with evidence serving predominantly a perfunctory role. In contrast, instrumental and conceptual uses of evidence remain rare. Still, the findings point at the possibility, albeit limited, for gradual Europeanisation and uptake of evidence-based practices even in highly unfavourable conditions. This can be facilitated by a prolonged exposure to evidence-based practices, targeted EU pressure, the establishment of forums facilitating evidence exchange and the presence of “evidence-friendly” individuals within the civil service.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Sciences\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09527-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09527-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

循证决策(EBPM)一直是欧盟改善监管议程的关键支柱。然而,它在多大程度上真正影响了国内的政策制定实践,这一点在很大程度上仍未得到探讨。本研究通过关注技术官僚理性文化历来薄弱的环境中 EBPM 的采用情况来填补这一空白。为此,文章提出了一个新颖的分析框架,将欧洲化概念与知识和证据利用方面的学术见解相结合。然后将该框架应用于 "最不可能 "的保加利亚案例及其《2021-2030 年国家气候与能源计划》。文章通过 26 个半结构式访谈,分析了不同类型的证据在该计划制定过程中的使用情况。研究发现,真正采用 EBPM 实践的比例仍然相对较低,证据主要起到敷衍的作用。相比之下,证据的工具性和概念性使用仍然很少。尽管如此,研究结果表明,即使在非常不利的条件下,也有可能逐步实现欧洲化和采用循证实践,尽管这种可能性是有限的。长期接触以证据为基础的实践、欧盟有针对性的压力、建立促进证据交流的论坛以及公务员中存在 "对证据友好 "的个人,都可以促进这种情况的发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Enlightenment, politicisation or mere window dressing? Europeanisation and the use of evidence for policy making in Bulgaria

Evidence-based policy making (EBPM) has been a key pillar of the better regulation agenda of the European Union. However, the extent to which it has genuinely impacted domestic policy making practices has remained largely unexplored. This study sets out to address this gap by focusing on EBPM adoption in settings with historically weak culture of technocratic rationality. To this end, the article proposes a novel analytical framework combining the concept of Europeanisation with insights from the scholarship on knowledge and evidence utilisation. The framework is then applied to the “least likely” case of Bulgaria and its National Climate and Energy Plan for 2021–2030. The article draws on 26 semi-structured interviews to analyse the use of different types of evidence in the Plan’s formulation. The study finds that genuine adoption of EBPM practices remains relatively low with evidence serving predominantly a perfunctory role. In contrast, instrumental and conceptual uses of evidence remain rare. Still, the findings point at the possibility, albeit limited, for gradual Europeanisation and uptake of evidence-based practices even in highly unfavourable conditions. This can be facilitated by a prolonged exposure to evidence-based practices, targeted EU pressure, the establishment of forums facilitating evidence exchange and the presence of “evidence-friendly” individuals within the civil service.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy Sciences
Policy Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
9.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci
期刊最新文献
The future as developmental construct in the work of Harold Lasswell On Torgerson’s Lasswells Emancipatory policy sciences or interpretative revisionism: some thoughts on Douglas Torgerson’s The Policy Sciences of Harold Lasswell Breaking away from family control? Collaboration among political organisations and social media endorsement among their constituents Shattering stereotypes and the critical lasswell
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1