共同生产的局限性:将监管能力与环境政策权威知识的共同生产联系起来

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Science and Public Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.1093/scipol/scae038
Daniel Large
{"title":"共同生产的局限性:将监管能力与环境政策权威知识的共同生产联系起来","authors":"Daniel Large","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scae038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper introduces a novel perspective on co-production of authoritative knowledge in environmental policy, shifting focus from perceived flaws in knowledge production to structural and governance challenges impeding knowledge uptake. It argues that these challenges, including diminishing support for public authority and widespread enthusiasm for collaboration, contribute to regulatory capacity deficits, which undermine knowledge claims’ authority. This account is tested through case study analysis of policy stakeholders in Colorado, USA, who sought to co-produce a scientific assessment for biodiversity offsetting. Despite repeated efforts, industry stakeholders disengaged twice, leading to abandonment of the policy initiative. Analysis demonstrates regulatory capacity’s crucial role in fostering co-production and integration of authoritative scientific knowledge in policymaking. By analyzing the failure to sustain stakeholder engagement in terms of interplay between regulatory capacity and co-production, this study contributes a critique of mainstream co-production and demonstrates the value of analyzing how institutional arrangements shape knowledge and policy integration.","PeriodicalId":47975,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The limits of co-production: linking regulatory capacity to co-production of authoritative knowledge for environmental policy\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Large\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/scipol/scae038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper introduces a novel perspective on co-production of authoritative knowledge in environmental policy, shifting focus from perceived flaws in knowledge production to structural and governance challenges impeding knowledge uptake. It argues that these challenges, including diminishing support for public authority and widespread enthusiasm for collaboration, contribute to regulatory capacity deficits, which undermine knowledge claims’ authority. This account is tested through case study analysis of policy stakeholders in Colorado, USA, who sought to co-produce a scientific assessment for biodiversity offsetting. Despite repeated efforts, industry stakeholders disengaged twice, leading to abandonment of the policy initiative. Analysis demonstrates regulatory capacity’s crucial role in fostering co-production and integration of authoritative scientific knowledge in policymaking. By analyzing the failure to sustain stakeholder engagement in terms of interplay between regulatory capacity and co-production, this study contributes a critique of mainstream co-production and demonstrates the value of analyzing how institutional arrangements shape knowledge and policy integration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae038\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scae038","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从一个新的角度介绍了环境政策中权威知识的共同生产,将重点从知识生产中的缺陷转移到阻碍知识吸收的结构和治理挑战上。本文认为,这些挑战(包括对公共权威的支持减少和对合作的普遍热情)导致了监管能力的不足,从而损害了知识主张的权威性。通过对美国科罗拉多州政策利益相关者的案例研究分析,验证了这一观点。尽管经过反复努力,行业利益相关者还是两次退出,导致政策倡议被放弃。分析表明,监管能力在促进政策制定中的共同生产和权威科学知识的整合方面起着至关重要的作用。通过从监管能力与共同生产之间的相互作用角度分析利益相关者参与的失败,本研究对主流共同生产提出了批评,并证明了分析制度安排如何塑造知识与政策整合的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The limits of co-production: linking regulatory capacity to co-production of authoritative knowledge for environmental policy
This paper introduces a novel perspective on co-production of authoritative knowledge in environmental policy, shifting focus from perceived flaws in knowledge production to structural and governance challenges impeding knowledge uptake. It argues that these challenges, including diminishing support for public authority and widespread enthusiasm for collaboration, contribute to regulatory capacity deficits, which undermine knowledge claims’ authority. This account is tested through case study analysis of policy stakeholders in Colorado, USA, who sought to co-produce a scientific assessment for biodiversity offsetting. Despite repeated efforts, industry stakeholders disengaged twice, leading to abandonment of the policy initiative. Analysis demonstrates regulatory capacity’s crucial role in fostering co-production and integration of authoritative scientific knowledge in policymaking. By analyzing the failure to sustain stakeholder engagement in terms of interplay between regulatory capacity and co-production, this study contributes a critique of mainstream co-production and demonstrates the value of analyzing how institutional arrangements shape knowledge and policy integration.
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Science and Public Policy is a leading refereed, international journal on public policies for science, technology and innovation, and on their implications for other public policies. It covers basic, applied, high, low, and any other types of S&T, and rich or poorer countries. It is read in around 70 countries, in universities (teaching and research), government ministries and agencies, consultancies, industry and elsewhere.
期刊最新文献
Diversity and directionality: friends or foes in sustainability transitions? Morality policy at the frontier of science: legislators’ views on germline engineering Regulatory agencies as innovation enablers: a conceptualization The impact of winning funding on researcher productivity, results from a randomized trial Operation warp speed: Harbinger of American industrial innovation policies
×
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