Suchergebnisse

The aim of this article is to examine the complex interrelationship between 'front' and 'back' stage policy-making. 'Front stage' describes the activities of visible and accountable office holders in elected bodies, constrained by established bureaucratic rules. 'Back stage' describes the world of unseen decision-making where public officials are less constrained by formal rules and public scrutiny. Drawing on a recent case study of English devolution in the United Kingdom, this article examines how front and back stage policy-making shape one another and the impact this can have on policy effectiveness and democratic accountability. Findings reveal that policy-makers need to think more explicitly about the interplay between front and back stage activities. In the context of English devolution, the transition from back to front stage has been flawed. Central government's purposeful strategy of informal negotiations with very few formal objectives has resulted in low stakeholder buy-in, which has mitigated against the potential effectiveness of back stage decision-making.

The aim of this article is to examine the complex interrelationship between 'front' and 'back' stage policy-making. 'Front stage' describes the activities of visible and accountable office holders in elected bodies, constrained by established bureaucratic rules. 'Back stage' describes the world of unseen decision-making where public officials are less constrained by formal rules and public scrutiny. Drawing on a recent case study of English devolution in the United Kingdom, this article examines how front and back stage policy-making shape one another and the impact this can have on policy effectiveness and democratic accountability. Findings reveal that policy-makers need to think more explicitly about the interplay between front and back stage activities. In the context of English devolution, the transition from back to front stage has been flawed. Central government's purposeful strategy of informal negotiations with very few formal objectives has resulted in low stakeholder buy-in, which has mitigated against the potential effectiveness of back stage decision-making.

Debates about the appropriate territorial scales of government to meet the challenges of economic, political and social change have gained momentum in Western Europe in recent years. In the UK, political mobilization has transformed constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. By contrast, in the English regions, a less radical approach has been adopted, but the outcome has been a strengthening of the institutions of regional governance. A key feature has been the enhanced responsibilities of the Government Offices for the Regions, which have been encouraged to build on their traditional administrative functions and adopt a more strategic role. This article explores the Offices' contribution to regional and local governance. Our central argument is that although increasingly expected to act as a bridgehead between national and sub-national government and a focus for regional policy coordination, their potential role in filling the missing gap in English regional governance has not yet been fully grasped. Adapted from the source document.

The aim of this article is to explore the types of health evidence that diverse actors find most persuasive in a complex policy system. The impact of evidence depends on many factors, including how it is presented and translated to audiences. If diverse actors are to address complex health challenges collectively, it helps if they can draw on evidence that is accessible and meaningful to all. We explore how this can be done through a case study of promoting healthy urban development in the United Kingdom. Based on 132 in-depth interviews with critical actors from across the urban development system, we examined the types of evidence actors find most helpful. While there was some variation by sector, actors revealed a strong preference for narratives with a strong emotional impact, supported by credible evidence. Urban development decision makers are persuaded by both qualitative and quantitative evidence, although there was a slight preference among the public sector for quantitative data. All actors valued evidence on the impact of the urban environment on population health outcomes and the associated costs of ill health. There was, however, a preference among private sector actors for evidence showing economic valuations of health that demonstrate a commercial advantage. Our findings make an important contribution to the evidence-based policy literature by identifying the types of health evidence that appeal to diverse actors in the urban development system. These insights can be used to design evidence that meets the requirements of all actors in a complex system.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Preamble -- Authors -- Executive Summary -- Key Recommendations -- 1. What is Place-Based Policy? -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Defining place -- 1.3 Policy and place -- 1.4 Place-based versus spatially blind policies -- 1.5 Subjective aspects of place-based policy -- 1.6 Structure of the book -- 2. What are the Benefits of Place-Based Policy? -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Generating economic growth -- 2.2.1 Innovation and place-based policy -- 2.2.2 Universities and place-based policy -- 2.3 Creating better policy outcomes -- 2.4 Improving well-being -- 2.5 Responding to economic shocks and supporting transition -- 2.6 Addressing disadvantage -- 2.7 Conclusions -- 3. Requirements and Challenges of Place-Based Policy -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Governance -- 3.2.1 The governance of Smart Specialisation -- 3.3 Leadership -- 3.4 Policy Challenges -- 3.4.1 Faltering expectations -- 3.4.2 Vested interests -- 3.4.3 Lack of financial resources -- 3.4.4 Measuring success -- 3.5 Conclusions -- 4. Outcomes of Place-Based Policy: What Works and What Does Not? -- 4.1 Introduction -- 4.2 Place-based policies in response to an economic shock: the Latrobe Valley in Gippsland, Australia -- 4.3 Place-based policies for innovation and economic growth: Finland and Sweden -- 4.4 Placed-based innovation policies and the role of time frame and support by political leaders: South Moravia, Czechia -- 4.5 Place-based adaptation using collaborative governance: Nova Scotia, Canada -- 4.6 Place-based policy to address economic disadvantage: City of Iida, Nagano Prefecture, Japan -- 4.7 Conclusions -- 5. Conclusions: Questions Answered, Issues Remaining -- 5.1 How can governments and communities best deliver place-based policy?.