所有钉子都用一把锤子?测试政策工具态度的自主权

IF 2.7 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2022-08-18 DOI:10.1002/epa2.1159
Martin Nekola, Ivan Petrúšek, Markéta Musílková
{"title":"所有钉子都用一把锤子?测试政策工具态度的自主权","authors":"Martin Nekola,&nbsp;Ivan Petrúšek,&nbsp;Markéta Musílková","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Policy design is influenced by stakeholders' attitudes and contextual constraints. While the latter factor is highly variable, attitudes toward policy instruments are deemed more stable across both policy domains and time. This article uses evidence from a cross-sectional survey of Czech university students to examine the autonomy of policy instrument attitudes (APIA) in five policy domains. Only 16% of students endorse a small set of universal instruments for a wide range of applications (so-called instrumentalists) which indicates rather low cross-domain consistency of attitudes (strong APIA hypothesis). Attitudes toward information instruments are correlated within policy domains, thus providing some support for the weak version of APIA. However, this association does not apply to other instruments. The results suggest that the majority of students can be seen as contingentists whose evaluation of the merits of instruments is based on instruments' suitability for a particular problem.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"8 4","pages":"394-415"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One hammer for all nails? Testing the autonomy of policy instrument attitudes\",\"authors\":\"Martin Nekola,&nbsp;Ivan Petrúšek,&nbsp;Markéta Musílková\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/epa2.1159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Policy design is influenced by stakeholders' attitudes and contextual constraints. While the latter factor is highly variable, attitudes toward policy instruments are deemed more stable across both policy domains and time. This article uses evidence from a cross-sectional survey of Czech university students to examine the autonomy of policy instrument attitudes (APIA) in five policy domains. Only 16% of students endorse a small set of universal instruments for a wide range of applications (so-called instrumentalists) which indicates rather low cross-domain consistency of attitudes (strong APIA hypothesis). Attitudes toward information instruments are correlated within policy domains, thus providing some support for the weak version of APIA. However, this association does not apply to other instruments. The results suggest that the majority of students can be seen as contingentists whose evaluation of the merits of instruments is based on instruments' suitability for a particular problem.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":\"8 4\",\"pages\":\"394-415\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

政策设计受利益相关者的态度和环境约束的影响。虽然后一个因素是高度可变的,但对政策工具的态度被认为在政策领域和时间上都更加稳定。本文使用来自捷克大学生横断面调查的证据来检验政策工具态度(APIA)在五个政策领域的自主性。只有16%的学生支持一套用于广泛应用的通用工具(所谓的工具主义者),这表明态度的跨领域一致性相当低(强APIA假设)。对信息工具的态度在政策领域内是相关的,因此为APIA的弱版本提供了一些支持。但是,这种联系并不适用于其他文书。结果表明,大多数学生可以被视为偶然主义者,他们对仪器优点的评估是基于仪器对特定问题的适用性。
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
One hammer for all nails? Testing the autonomy of policy instrument attitudes

Policy design is influenced by stakeholders' attitudes and contextual constraints. While the latter factor is highly variable, attitudes toward policy instruments are deemed more stable across both policy domains and time. This article uses evidence from a cross-sectional survey of Czech university students to examine the autonomy of policy instrument attitudes (APIA) in five policy domains. Only 16% of students endorse a small set of universal instruments for a wide range of applications (so-called instrumentalists) which indicates rather low cross-domain consistency of attitudes (strong APIA hypothesis). Attitudes toward information instruments are correlated within policy domains, thus providing some support for the weak version of APIA. However, this association does not apply to other instruments. The results suggest that the majority of students can be seen as contingentists whose evaluation of the merits of instruments is based on instruments' suitability for a particular problem.

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
European Policy Analysis
European Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Issue Information What determines effectiveness in the policy process? Is open strategy a good fit for Public-Private hybrid organizations? Triggering policy learning via formal EU evaluation requirements in the case of Cohesion Policy Between institutions and narratives: Understanding collective action in innovation policy processes
×
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