血、汗和大麻:对有争议问题的现实政策评估

IF 4.6 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of European Public Policy Pub Date : 2023-06-18 DOI:10.1080/13501763.2023.2222141
Céline Mavrot, Susanne Hadorn, F. Sager
{"title":"血、汗和大麻:对有争议问题的现实政策评估","authors":"Céline Mavrot, Susanne Hadorn, F. Sager","doi":"10.1080/13501763.2023.2222141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The motivation of this article is to address the ambivalent position of policy analysis when it intervenes in the real-world policy process through policy evaluation. It tackles the underresearched question of the challenges faced by policy analysis in relation to applied research mandates. It argues that policy analysis is constantly at risk of instrumentalisation by politico-administrative players. The article is based on the evaluation of the medical cannabis policy in Switzerland as a case study. The results point out four specific challenges faced by applied policy analysis: political pressure, scientific integrity, access to sensitive data, and epistemic legitimacy. However, applied policy analysis can contribute to de-escalating controversies by presenting a bigger and contextualised picture of the considered political issues. Policy evaluation can identify deficient implementation processes, but also wider mismatches among legislative and societal processes. Hence, although evidence is subordinated to other factors in the decision-making process, evaluations provide an outside perspective, which can help solving controversies around policies. The article contributes to the literature on the politics of policy analysis by showing that confronting policy analysis with practical problems brings both scientific and policy benefits.","PeriodicalId":51362,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Public Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"1884 - 1910"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blood, sweat, and cannabis: real-world policy evaluation of controversial issues\",\"authors\":\"Céline Mavrot, Susanne Hadorn, F. Sager\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13501763.2023.2222141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The motivation of this article is to address the ambivalent position of policy analysis when it intervenes in the real-world policy process through policy evaluation. It tackles the underresearched question of the challenges faced by policy analysis in relation to applied research mandates. It argues that policy analysis is constantly at risk of instrumentalisation by politico-administrative players. The article is based on the evaluation of the medical cannabis policy in Switzerland as a case study. The results point out four specific challenges faced by applied policy analysis: political pressure, scientific integrity, access to sensitive data, and epistemic legitimacy. However, applied policy analysis can contribute to de-escalating controversies by presenting a bigger and contextualised picture of the considered political issues. Policy evaluation can identify deficient implementation processes, but also wider mismatches among legislative and societal processes. Hence, although evidence is subordinated to other factors in the decision-making process, evaluations provide an outside perspective, which can help solving controversies around policies. The article contributes to the literature on the politics of policy analysis by showing that confronting policy analysis with practical problems brings both scientific and policy benefits.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"1884 - 1910\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2222141\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2222141","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文的动机是解决政策分析在通过政策评估干预现实世界政策过程时的矛盾地位。它解决了与应用研究任务有关的政策分析所面临的挑战的研究不足的问题。它认为,政策分析经常面临被政治行政参与者工具化的风险。本文以对瑞士医用大麻政策的评价为案例进行研究。结果指出了应用政策分析面临的四个具体挑战:政治压力、科学完整性、获取敏感数据和认知合法性。然而,应用政策分析可以通过对所考虑的政治问题提出一个更大的、背景化的图景,从而有助于降低争议的升级。政策评估可以识别执行过程的缺陷,但也可以识别立法和社会过程之间更广泛的不匹配。因此,尽管证据在决策过程中服从于其他因素,但评估提供了一个外部视角,有助于解决围绕政策的争议。这篇文章对政策分析的政治学文献做出了贡献,表明将政策分析与实际问题相结合可以带来科学效益和政策效益。
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
Blood, sweat, and cannabis: real-world policy evaluation of controversial issues
ABSTRACT The motivation of this article is to address the ambivalent position of policy analysis when it intervenes in the real-world policy process through policy evaluation. It tackles the underresearched question of the challenges faced by policy analysis in relation to applied research mandates. It argues that policy analysis is constantly at risk of instrumentalisation by politico-administrative players. The article is based on the evaluation of the medical cannabis policy in Switzerland as a case study. The results point out four specific challenges faced by applied policy analysis: political pressure, scientific integrity, access to sensitive data, and epistemic legitimacy. However, applied policy analysis can contribute to de-escalating controversies by presenting a bigger and contextualised picture of the considered political issues. Policy evaluation can identify deficient implementation processes, but also wider mismatches among legislative and societal processes. Hence, although evidence is subordinated to other factors in the decision-making process, evaluations provide an outside perspective, which can help solving controversies around policies. The article contributes to the literature on the politics of policy analysis by showing that confronting policy analysis with practical problems brings both scientific and policy benefits.
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
8.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
83
期刊介绍: The primary aim of the Journal of European Public Policy is to provide a comprehensive and definitive source of analytical, theoretical and methodological articles in the field of European public policy. Focusing on the dynamics of public policy in Europe, the journal encourages a wide range of social science approaches, both qualitative and quantitative. JEPP defines European public policy widely and welcomes innovative ideas and approaches. The main areas covered by the Journal are as follows: •Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of public policy in Europe and elsewhere •National public policy developments and processes in Europe •Comparative studies of public policy within Europe
期刊最新文献
Core-periphery divisions in the EU? East-west and north-south tensions compared Regional manufacturing composition and political (dis)content in Europe More bark than bite? European digital sovereignty discourse and changes to the European Union’s external relations policy Responsible judges or judging responsibilities? EU Court of Justice, Bundesverfassungsgericht and EU economic governance Fight or flight? Explaining the role of the European Parliament in the establishment of the Recovery and Resilience Facility
×
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