Suchergebnisse

AbstractWhat mechanisms link external events to policy change in a policy subsystem? This paper responds to this question by offering a nuanced re‐conceptualization of external events and by identifying the mechanisms that link disruptive crises to policy change. Building from the tenets of the advocacy coalition framework and a synthesis of the crisis management and policy change literatures, this paper (1) introduces the concept of policy and geographical proximity as a means to show how different types of crises alter the incentives for policy action within policy subsystems; (2) discusses an integrated set of proposals on how geographical and policy proximity affects the prospects of change in a policy subsystem; and (3) presents hypothesized scenarios outlining plausible intervening pathways linking a crisis to changes as contingent on policy subsystem structures.

Arguments for collaborative rather than adversarial approaches to governance rest partly on two axioms: first, that collaborative approaches mitigate conflict to intermediate levels and second, that collaborative approaches help integrate science and values through various joint fact‐finding strategies. Using questionnaire data in 1984 and 2001 of policy participants involved in Lake Tahoe water quality policy, this article investigates whether a shift from an adversarial to a collaborative policy subsystem is associated with (i) convergence in beliefs regarding water quality problems and policy proposals; and (ii) an increase in the use of science‐based empirical beliefs and a decrease in the use of normative beliefs in supporting policy proposals. The findings send a mixed message to policymakers and researchers about science and collaboration. The analysis suggests that collaborative policy subsystems are associated with convergence in some beliefs between rival coalitions, but it also suggests that policy participants are no more likely to rely on science‐based, empirical beliefs in collaborative than in adversarial policy subsystems.

AbstractMany theories and approaches to policy studies have recently begun to question and research how emotions interact with peoples' understanding and behaviors, especially in policy and politics. This paper builds on and contributes to studying emotions in policy and politics via the advocacy coalition framework (ACF). In applying Emotional‐Belief Analysis, this paper examines the legislative testimony on one of the US' first gender‐affirming care (GAC) bans. It shows that those testifying can be organized in competing advocacy coalitions with distinct emotion‐belief expressions in combination with deep core and policy core beliefs. Moreover, expressions of negative emotions and policy core beliefs display significant and the largest effects in explaining coalition affiliation and shared views of the bill banning GAC. The conclusion summarizes the paper's empirical themes with suggestions for incorporating emotions more into the ACF and the broader policy studies field.

Abstract"Tempest in a teapot" is an idiom that refers to a problem that has been blown out of proportion, which is how we see the supposedly divisive relationship between two research traditions: mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies. In this commentary, we explore both research traditions, comparing and contrasting their views of public policy and policy processes, uses of theories, and approaches to research. Our aim is not to unite them or reject points of debate. Instead, we offer strategies for more productive collaborations, including side-by-side research, integrative research, engagement in constructive discussions of research techniques, and applied research.

Una "tormenta en un vaso de agua" es una expresión para referirse a un problema al que se le ha dado una dimensión desproporcionada. Precisamente así vemos la supuesta división entre dos tradiciones de investigación: el estudio convencional sobre procesos de política pública y el análisis interpretativo de la política pública. En este texto exploramos ambas tradiciones de investigación, comparando y contrastando sus puntos de vista sobre la definición y los procesos de política pública, usos de teorías y perspectivas de investigación. Nuestro objetivo no es unificar las dos tradiciones o desestimar puntos clave del debate entre ellas. En cambio, proponemos estrategias para desarrollar colaboraciones más productivas, incluyendo la investigación paralela o lado a lado, la investigación integradora, la profundización en discusiones constructivas sobre técnicas de investigación y la investigación aplicada.

A scholarly nexus is defined as identifiable spheres of theoretical and empirical overlap between academic fields or disciplines. This article explores the nexus between policy process research, public management scholarship, and nonprofit and voluntary action studies, oriented from the perspective of policy process scholars. The article begins with a description of policy process research, including some of its major thematic emphases regarding governance problems and processes. It next discusses limitations of policy process research imposed by its scope of inquiry, theoretical black boxes, and omitted factors. Three strategies—filling, zooming, and linking—for addressing these limitations are introduced. The article ends with rationales for leveraging research at the nexus to advance both specialized and general knowledge about public policy processes and governance issues.

AbstractNoticeably absent from the tools and techniques in policy analysis are methods for understanding political contexts, including the beliefs, networks, resources, and activities of policy actors. In combination,PolicyAnalyticalCapacity and theAdvocacyCoalitionFramework offer one appropriate solution. We apply both approaches to analyze theColorado climate and energy policy subsystem using questionnaire data. In the policy subsystem, we identify a large proclimate change coalition and a smaller anticlimate change coalition. Member beliefs between rival coalitions diverge in regard to the cause, severity, and solutions needed to address climate change adaptation and mitigation issues. Both coalitions report similar levels of individual and organizational capacity to generate and analyze information and to engage in similar activities and strategies. This article contributes to the public policy literature by applying bothPolicyAnalyticalCapacity and theAdvocacyCoalitionFramework and by emphasizing individual, organizational, and subsystem levels in conducting a stakeholder analysis.

The rationale for collaborative environmental management often hinges on two factors: first, specialized training creates biased analytics that require multidisciplinary approaches to solve policy problems; second, normative beliefs among competing actors must be included in policy making to give the process legitimacy and to decide trans‐scientific problems. These two factors are tested as drivers of conflict in an analysis of 76 watershed partnerships. The authors find that analytical bias is a secondary factor to normative beliefs; that depicting the primary driver of conflict in collaborative environmental management as between experts and nonexperts is inaccurate; that compared to the "life" and "physical" sciences, the social sciences and liberal arts have a stronger impact on beliefs and choice of allies and opponents; and that multiple measures are needed to capture the effect of analytical biases. The essay offers lessons for public administrators and highlights the limitations and generalizations of other governing approaches.