Suchergebnisse

Patrick Dunleavy and Sean Kippin examine how democratic the UK's party system and political parties are. Parties often attract criticism from those outside their ranks, but they have multiple, complex roles to play in any liberal democratic society. The UK's system has many strengths, but also key weaknesses, where meaningful reform could realistically take place.

Patrick Dunleavy and Sean Kippin examine how democratic the UK's party system and political parties are. Parties often attract criticism from those outside their ranks, but they have multiple, complex roles to play in any liberal democratic society. The UK's system has many strengths, but also key weaknesses, where meaningful reform could realistically take place.

Sonali Campion, Sean Kippin and the Democratic Audit team examine how the UK's deeply controversial current second chamber, the House of Lords, matches up to the criteria for liberal democracies with bicameral legislatures. Now an almost-all appointed Chamber, the Lords has achieved recent prominence on Brexit and tax credits by exerting some bipartisan influence moderating Commons proposals. However, its members remain creatures of patronage, and wholly unaccountable to the UK's citizens. All parties except the Tories now support its replacement by an elected Senate. Increasingly only the Tories and Liberal Democrats are still appointing any peers – although there are also a fifth of peers who are 'crossbenchers', not taking a party whip.

Parliamentary select committees are an increasingly important part of the democratic process in the UK. Their impact has grown in recent years, as has their media profile. The latter is partly due to the appearance of high-profile witnesses as committee hearings. The calling of witnesses is, in fact, a vital part of a select committee's role, as it allows MPs and peers to hold government ministers and officials to account, as well as gather evidence from experts and stakeholders outside government. This new research from Democratic Audit's Richard Berry and Sean Kippin explored who exactly gives evidence to select committees, based on analysis of the nearly 600 witnesses appearing in Parliament in a one-month period in late 2013. We considered the organisational affiliations of witnesses and the gender balance.

Policy 'incoherence' describes a lack of joined-up government that contributes to a confusing mix of policy instruments. It is an inevitable feature of multilevel policy-making, in which many actors compete to set the agenda, and 'inequalities policies', such as gender mainstreaming, which contain multiple and often-contradictory aims. This insight may prompt policy-makers to learn how other governments have responded pragmatically, rather than seeking to design abstract mainstreaming policies with unrealistic levels of coherence. Yet, policy learning is a political process characterized by contestation. Many policy-makers compete to define the policy problem, set the parameters for learning and determine which governments should take the lead. Therefore, we ask: How can we use policy theories to facilitate research-informed policy learning under these circumstances? We describe the framework that we developed for the Horizon 2020 project IMAJINE to encourage policy learning in multilevel policy-making systems. We then illustrate its value in a case study of our work for the Scottish Government's National Advisory Council on Women and Girls (NACWG), which asked us to identify lessons from gender mainstreaming policies in other nations. This framework and case study help explain the limited impact of research on policy learning.

Policy 'incoherence' describes a lack of joined-up government that contributes to a confusing mix of policy instruments. It is an inevitable feature of multilevel policy-making, in which many actors compete to set the agenda, and 'inequalities policies', such as gender mainstreaming, which contain multiple and often-contradictory aims. This insight may prompt policy-makers to learn how other governments have responded pragmatically, rather than seeking to design abstract mainstreaming policies with unrealistic levels of coherence. Yet, policy learning is a political process characterized by contestation. Many policy-makers compete to define the policy problem, set the parameters for learning and determine which governments should take the lead. Therefore, we ask: How can we use policy theories to facilitate research-informed policy learning under these circumstances? We describe the framework that we developed for the Horizon 2020 project IMAJINE to encourage policy learning in multilevel policy-making systems. We then illustrate its value in a case study of our work for the Scottish Government's National Advisory Council on Women and Girls (NACWG), which asked us to identify lessons from gender mainstreaming policies in other nations. This framework and case study help explain the limited impact of research on policy learning.

There is a broad consensus across European states and the EU that social and economic inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed. Yet inequality policy is notoriously complex and contested. This book approaches the issue through extensive analysis of territorial politics and policy.

There is a broad consensus across European states and the EU that social and economic inequality is a problem that needs to be addressed. Yet inequality policy is notoriously complex and contested. This book approaches the issue from two linked perspectives. First, a focus on functional requirements highlights what policymakers think they need to deliver policy successfully, and the gap between their requirements and reality. We identify this gap in relation to the theory and practice of policy learning, and to multiple sectors, to show how it manifests in health, education, and gender equity policies. Second, a focus on territorial politics highlights how the problem is interpreted at different scales, subject to competing demands to take responsibility. This contestation and spread of responsibilities contributes to different policy approaches across spatial scales. We conclude that governments promote many separate equity initiatives, across territories and sectors, without knowing if they are complementary or contradictory. This outcome could reflect the fact that ambiguous policy problems and complex policymaking processes are beyond the full knowledge or control of governments. It could also be part of a strategy to make a rhetorically radical case while knowing that they will translate into safer policies. It allows them to replace debates on values, regarding whose definition of equity matters and which inequalities to tolerate, with more technical discussions of policy processes. Governments may be offering new perspectives on spatial justice or new ways to reduce political attention to inequalities.

AbstractThe EU has many plans to foster equity and spatial justice. However, each has separate reference points, and it is difficult to find an overall vision. To demonstrate, we analyse two sectoral strategies to identify their implications for spatial justice strategies. Education focuses on early investment and public service reform. Health prioritises intersectoral action to address the 'social determinants' beyond the control of health services. Both warn against equating territorial cohesion or spatial justice with equal access to public services. These findings could inform European Commission strategy, but it tends to respond with renewed rhetoric rather than reconsidering its approach.

We highlight practical lessons from policy theories on how to promote equity through transformational changes in policymaking. Health, education and gender are at the heart of such equity policy agendas. Their advocates seek transformational changes to: policy, to reject a 'neoliberal' paradigm and address the social and economic causes of unfair inequalities, and policymaking, to foster collaboration and holistic government. However, they also report a wide gap between aspirations and outcomes, and many seek insights from policy studies on how to close it. Our aim is to use their common engagement with policy theories to connect their agendas, foster intersectoral dialogue, and ensure that their contributions are greater than the sum of their parts. A common take-home message is to be cautious about any attempt to turn a provocative transformational political project into a technical process containing a 'toolbox' or 'playbook'.

The EU has many plans to foster equity and spatial justice. However, each has separate reference points and it is difficult to find an overall vision. To demonstrate, we analyse two sectoral strategies to identify their implications for spatial justice strategies. Education focuses on early investment and public service reform. Health prioritizes intersectoral action to address the 'social determinants' beyond the control of health services. Both warn against equating territorial cohesion or spatial justice with equal access to public services. These findings could inform European Commission strategy, but it tends to respond with renewed rhetoric rather than reconsidering its approach. ; Output Status: Forthcoming/Available Online