Suchergebnisse

AbstractGovernments have long attempted to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship in many policy spheres, including economic development at national and regional levels. Neo‐liberal market‐based approaches to regional economic policy have been developed as an alternative to government subsidization and regulation. However the role of the state remains very significant in shaping regional strategies and in funding the physical and social infrastructure essential for economic growth. Neo‐liberal approaches have focused on economic development through entrepreneurship, but regional innovation policy has been broadened to include economic, social and environmental objectives, summed up as 'innovation for sustainable regions'. Regional policy consists of a series of intersecting goals and programmes that are often in tension. Governments operate in complex institutional contexts and multi‐level arrangements which constrain their responsiveness and their capacity to innovate. In the face of complex or 'wicked' issues, there are serious challenges for the government sector to develop capabilities for promoting successful innovation at the regional level. It is argued that governments need to play a leadership role, and that they require new approaches based on partnerships and networks.Resumen.Los gobiernos han intentado por mucho tiempo fomentar la innovación y el espíritu emprendedor en muchas ámbitos políticos, incluyendo el desarrollo económico a escala nacional y regional. Los enfoques de mercado neoliberales para las políticas económicas regionales han sido desarrollados como una alternativa a los subsidios y la regulación. Sin embargo, el estado sigue teniendo un papel muy significativo a la hora de esbozar las estrategias regionales y financiar la infraestructura física y social esencial para el crecimiento económico. Los enfoques neoliberales se han centrado en el desarrollo económico con origen en un espíritu emprendedor, pero las políticas de innovación regional han crecido para poder abarcar objetivos económicos, sociales y medioambientales, resumidos en el término "innovación para regiones sostenibles". Las políticas regionales consisten en una serie de metas que se entrecruzan y de programas a menudo en conflicto. Los gobiernos operan bajo contextos institucionales complejos y estructuras con niveles múltiples que restringen su capacidad de respuesta e innovación. Al enfrentarse a asuntos complejos o 'espinosos', existen retos serios para el sector gubernamental a la hora de desarrollar la capacidad de fomentar una innovación exitosa a escala regional. Se argumenta que es necesario que los gobiernos asuman un papel de liderazgo, y que necesitan nuevos enfoques basados en la cooperación y las redes de colaboración.

AbstractThis article outlines how civic engagement has become a distinctive feature of the policy development and review processes of governments in Australia, a federal polity. The patterns of civic engagement are quite variable across policy issues, levels of government and geographical regions. Civic engagement (or community consultation) has become a purposeful and planned dimension of policy development in most Australian jurisdictions since the 1980s. Two main reasons for this development are elaborated: the instrumental arguments about programme improvement and effectiveness, and the normative arguments about democratic legitimacy and rights to civic participation. The role of government‐sponsored processes for civic engagement is contrasted with the proliferation of new media and independent civil‐society forums available for commentary and advocacy. Key distinctions are drawn between various processes and methods of civic engagement in Australia, raising issues about the scope and authenticity of participation on different types of issues. There are specific challenges of involvement by and for indigenous communities, and the special needs of remote communities whose level of social and economic exclusion remains seriously depressed. The conclusions raise some implications for policy development and for state legitimacy arising from impoverished forms of civic engagement. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractThe evidence-based policy (EBP) movement has sought to promote rigorous analysis of service programs and policy options in order to improve the quality of decision-making. Rigorous research findings are seen as useful and necessary inputs for policy-makers in their ongoing consideration of policy development and program review. This article provides a critical overview of the research literature on evidence-based policy in the context of government policy-making and program improvement. Particular attention is given to the rational expectation that improved policy analysis will flow from a better evidence base, with consequent improvements in the service delivery and problem-solving capacities of government agencies. This expectation is contrasted with the practical limitations on rational processes typical in the real world of political decision-making, which is characterised by bargaining, entrenched commitments, and the interplay of diverse stakeholder values and interests. Key issues for consideration include the forms of evidence that are of greatest relevance or utility for decision-makers, and the most productive forms of interaction between the producers and the users of research and evaluation findings.

AbstractThe evidence-based policy (EBP) movement has often focused on relatively stable policy issues and service programs where rigorous analysis has been able to enhance policy-makers' consideration of improvement options. However, EBP has taken different turns in policy fields marked by value-conflict, rapid change, high risk or radical uncertainty. One such area in recent years has been water policy, in the context of water scarcity. There have been urgent new challenges for water policy, planning and delivery in many cities and regions around the world. This paper examines an Australian case-study, the urban water crisis in Southeast Queensland (SEQ), taking a policy governance perspective. The State government became increasingly alarmed by the deteriorating water-supply outlook, and undertook a number of policy changes including substantial re-structuring of urban water governance. The paper raises issues about the evidence base for decision-making, and for policy learning, where policy governance is shaped under conditions of uncertainty and crisis.

This article discusses recent trends to incorporate the results of systematic research (or 'evidence') into policy development, program evaluation and program improvement. This process is consistent with the New Public Management (NPM) emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness. Analysis of evidence helps to answer the questions 'what works? and 'what happens if we change these settings?' Secondly, some of the well known challenges and limitations for 'evidence‐based' policy are outlined. Policy decisions emerge from politics, judgement and debate, rather than being deduced from empirical analysis. Policy debate and analysis involves an interplay between facts, norms and desired actions, in which 'evidence' is diverse and contestable. Thirdly, the article outlines a distinction between technical and negotiated approaches to problem‐solving. The latter is a prominent feature of policy domains rich in 'network' approaches, partnering and community engagement. Networks and partnerships bring to the negotiation table a diversity of stakeholder 'evidence', ie, relevant information, interpretations and priorities. Finally, it is suggested that three types of evidence/perspective are especially relevant in the modern era – systematic ('scientific') research, program management experience ('practice'), and political judgement. What works for program clients is intrinsically connected to what works for managers and for political leaders. Thus, the practical craft of policy development and adjustment involves 'weaving' strands of information and values as seen through the lens of these three key stakeholder groups. There is not one evidence‐base but several bases. These disparate bodies of knowledge become multiple sets of evidence that inform and influence policy rather than determine it.