Suchergebnisse

Despite the increasing use of experiments in policy-making the suitability of experimenting in the public sector context is still under debate. In this article, we focus on experimenting in the field of tax policy and ask: what are the promises and pitfalls of using experimental approaches in tax policy? While the existing discussions on tax policy experimentation focus on randomized controlled trials from a legal perspective, we adopt a broader view and provide a more comprehensive discussion by synthesizing insights from the fields of political science, public policy, public administration, and governance. Our analysis encompasses randomized controlled trials, non-randomized policy pilots and design experiments. We summarize the existing knowledge on using experimental approaches in policy-making and discuss the implications of the knowledge for experimenting in tax policy. We seek to offer a more holistic and critical take on whether we should promote the use of experimental approaches in this domain.

AbstractAcross Europe, public employment services are experimenting with more holistic and cross‐sector collaborations to tackle the wicked problem of long‐term unemployment. These collaborations operate in a context characterised by tensions produced by multiple demands for accountability. Based on case studies of the accountability relations and challenges in five such collaborations in the Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders), Estonia, Scotland and Denmark, we found that: rigorous use of quantifiable measurement regimes made it difficult to attribute salience to important aspects of the progress made by the unemployed citizen; standardised accounts come with the risk of reductionist understandings of the citizen's social circumstances and resources; superficial participation by local politicians resulted in rather weak political accountability and a marked ambiguity of the role of the client as both accountee and accountholder.