谁是行为公共政策专家?他们是如何在全球范围内组织起来的?

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Politics Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1332/030557320x15956825120821
Holger Strassheim
{"title":"谁是行为公共政策专家?他们是如何在全球范围内组织起来的?","authors":"Holger Strassheim","doi":"10.1332/030557320x15956825120821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Behavioural public policy has spread internationally over recent years. Worldwide, expert units are translating insights from behavioural sciences into policy interventions. Yet, behavioural expert networks are a puzzling case. They seem to oscillate between two modes of collective action: as an epistemic community, they are based on the consensual belief that biases in behaviour pose a problem for policymaking. As an instrument constituency, they bring together a diversity of actors, unified not by consensual beliefs about problems but by practices of promoting behavioural instruments as solutions. Drawing on a review of literature, this article provides a systematic analysis of the relation between epistemic communities and instrument constituencies. It argues that there has been an ‘agency shift’ from one mode to the other. The implications are that experts should be aware of the fact that the instruments they are proposing might develop a political life of their own.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who are behavioural public policy experts and how are they organised globally?\",\"authors\":\"Holger Strassheim\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/030557320x15956825120821\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Behavioural public policy has spread internationally over recent years. Worldwide, expert units are translating insights from behavioural sciences into policy interventions. Yet, behavioural expert networks are a puzzling case. They seem to oscillate between two modes of collective action: as an epistemic community, they are based on the consensual belief that biases in behaviour pose a problem for policymaking. As an instrument constituency, they bring together a diversity of actors, unified not by consensual beliefs about problems but by practices of promoting behavioural instruments as solutions. Drawing on a review of literature, this article provides a systematic analysis of the relation between epistemic communities and instrument constituencies. It argues that there has been an ‘agency shift’ from one mode to the other. The implications are that experts should be aware of the fact that the instruments they are proposing might develop a political life of their own.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47631,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15956825120821\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15956825120821","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

近年来,行为公共政策已在国际上传播开来。在世界范围内,专家单位正在将行为科学的见解转化为政策干预措施。然而,行为专家网络是一个令人困惑的案例。他们似乎在两种集体行动模式之间摇摆:作为一个认知共同体,他们基于一种共识,即行为偏见会给政策制定带来问题。作为工具支持者,他们汇集了各种各样的行动者,统一他们的不是关于问题的共识信念,而是促进行为工具作为解决办法的做法。在回顾文献的基础上,本文对认知共同体和工具选区之间的关系进行了系统的分析。它认为,已经出现了从一种模式到另一种模式的“代理转移”。其含义是,专家们应该意识到这样一个事实,即他们提出的工具可能会发展出自己的政治生命。
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
Who are behavioural public policy experts and how are they organised globally?
Behavioural public policy has spread internationally over recent years. Worldwide, expert units are translating insights from behavioural sciences into policy interventions. Yet, behavioural expert networks are a puzzling case. They seem to oscillate between two modes of collective action: as an epistemic community, they are based on the consensual belief that biases in behaviour pose a problem for policymaking. As an instrument constituency, they bring together a diversity of actors, unified not by consensual beliefs about problems but by practices of promoting behavioural instruments as solutions. Drawing on a review of literature, this article provides a systematic analysis of the relation between epistemic communities and instrument constituencies. It argues that there has been an ‘agency shift’ from one mode to the other. The implications are that experts should be aware of the fact that the instruments they are proposing might develop a political life of their own.
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
7.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France Concluding discussion: key themes in the (possible) move to co-production and co-creation in public management A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value Collaborative governance and innovation in public services settings Digital platforms for the co-creation of public value
×
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