Suchergebnisse

This thesis contains (1) a discussion of theory and methods in the contemporary analysis of political ideas (chap II), (2) a framework for the study of decision-making in the field of foreign policy, and (3) an application of the framework to the discussions about the dissolution of the Union between Sweden and Norway in 1905. The subject-matter has been treated in the form of a comparative study of Swedish and Norwegian discussions, as they can be followed in newpaper articles, pamphlets, and records of parliamentary sessions and party meetings. I have also drawn upon a considerable amount of private materials (diaries, minutes and memoranda). ; Fulltext för avhandlingen är en något reviderad utgåva från 2007 som motsvarar doktorsavhandlingen från 19 december 1971. Stavfel i 1971 års tryckta upplaga har rättats till. Se sidan 4 i fulltext-filen för mer information om vad som ändrats i texten.

Cover Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Introduction: Policy Instrument Choice and Evaluation -- Part I Typology of Instruments -- 1 Policy Instruments: Typologies and Theories -- 2 The Stick: Regulation as a Tool of Government -- 3 The Carrot: Subsidies as a Tool of Government-Theory and Practice -- 4 The Sermon: Information Programs in the Public Policy Process-Choice, Effects, and Evaluation -- 5 The "Give-and-Take" Packaging of Policy Instruments: Optimizing Legitimacy and Effectiveness -- Part II Choice and Context -- 6 Choosing the Right Policy Instrument at the Right Time: The Contextual Challenges of Selection and Implementation -- 7 Contracting-Out and Program Evaluation: A Case Study -- 8 Government-Sponsored Enterprises as a Credit Allocation Tool in the United States -- 9 The Invisible Problem and How to Deal with It: National Policy Styles in Radiation Protection Policy in The Netherlands, England, and Belgium -- 10 The Management and Privatization of Korea's Public Enterprises -- 11 Conclusions: Policy Instruments Types, Packages, Choices, and Evaluation -- Contributor -- Index

How do governments cope with lurking crises that call for behavioral change among a wider citizenry? The global warming threat is a topical case in point. In this article, we explore the Swedish government response to the 1973 oil crisis, from which we draw lessons. In terms of policy instruments, Swedish policymakers deployed a twopronged, strategy. The government simultaneously initiated a package of quick/ soft as well as slow/hard instruments in the hope that the first package with information campaigns would be successful enough to make the second package with formal rationings redundant. The substantive goal was that the Swedes must save in homes, offices, and premises so that the large exporting industry should get the oil it needed to continue with full employment. The strategy worked. All pertinent actors, households as well as foreign oil concerns, heeded government persuasion efforts (sermons, a negotiated agreement) and took measures voluntarily. Why? One explanatory factor is the creative organization of the national crisis authorities. To a large extent, the strategy was implemented by organs stacked with a mixture of public agencies, private oil distributors and all kinds of organized non-governmental energy-use stakeholders to promote outreach, transversal co-creation, and collaborative governance. The government succeeded in its meaning-making efforts and created a strong narrative (sermon), which clearly pointed out the serious anticipated effects of the crisis in Sweden, according to which it became obvious that households and commerce needed to save energy in order to secure oil supply for industry to protect jobs and impede mass unemployment.

Evaluation and network governance are both among the top-10 trendy concepts in public policy. But how are they related? In the present article, we ask how public sector interventions guided by a network governance doctrine are to be evaluated. If evaluation means systematic judgment of organization, content, administration, outputs and effects in public policy, then evaluators need concepts and analytical tools to assess these features and communicate their analyses. In the literature, interest in network modes of governance often goes together with a call for a renewed vocabulary for evaluation and policy analysis. In the article, we do not take this to be a fact. Instead we turn it into a question: How relevant and productive are established concepts and tools of evaluation theory for evaluating network governance? More specifically, we address the issues of purposes and merit criteria in evaluation of interventions fashioned according to the network governance doctrine. Though it takes some elaboration, our overall conclusion is that at least some standard evaluation concepts and approaches are still productive in delineating, analysing and prescribing how network governance can be evaluated. There are crucial accountability issues to raise, the goal-achievement criterion is not irrelevant and the meaning of stakeholder evaluation is elucidated when confronted with the ideas of the network governance doctrine.

Evaluation and network governance are both among the top-10 trendy concepts in public policy. But how are they related? In the present article, we ask how public sector interventions guided by a network governance doctrine are to be evaluated. If evaluation means systematic judgment of organization, content, administration, outputs and effects in public policy, then evaluators need concepts and analytical tools to assess these features and communicate their analyses. In the literature, interest in network modes of governance often goes together with a call for a renewed vocabulary for evaluation and policy analysis. In the article, we do not take this to be a fact. Instead we turn it into a question: How relevant and productive are established concepts and tools of evaluation theory for evaluating network governance? More specifically, we address the issues of purposes and merit criteria in evaluation of interventions fashioned according to the network governance doctrine. Though it takes some elaboration, our overall conclusion is that at least some standard evaluation concepts and approaches are still productive in delineating, analysing and prescribing how network governance can be evaluated. There are crucial accountability issues to raise, the goal-achievement criterion is not irrelevant and the meaning of stakeholder evaluation is elucidated when confronted with the ideas of the network governance doctrine.