{"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}
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.
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