Suchergebnisse

This article analyses the role of cultural shift, as defined by Inglehart, in the major change in Israeli foreign policy embodied in the Oslo Accords. Aside from providing an empirical explanation, it also analyses the Oslo case from a general theoretical perspective concerning the relationship between cultural change and foreign policy change. It argues that a cultural shift towards Postmaterialism led to the rise of a new generation on the Israeli Left with a more Liberal outlook. It was this `Liberal Left' that was primarily responsible for conceiving, initiating and enacting the Oslo Accords. In broader terms, this study provides a new way of examining the relationship between cultural change and foreign policy change. As such, it provides a solid basis for the comparative analysis of the role of a substantive, worldwide cultural trend on foreign policy.

Much of the British & European literature on the role of interest groups in the policy process focuses on their participation in policy networks of various types. Possibly reflecting the original development of the policy community & policy network "models" in the late 1970s, these approaches tend to emphasize stability & continuity -- of both networks & policies. However, the 1980s & 1990s have witnessed much policy change & instability in most Western European states. In particular, some governments have adopted a more impositional policy style, & interest groups have learned to exploit the opportunities presented by a policy process that is increasingly characterized by multiple opportunity structures. This is especially the case following Europeanization of many policy sectors in the 15 EU member states. The article focuses on the possible causes of policy change, including the importance of state power; changes in the behavior of interest groups as they adjust to & exploit the opportunities presented by multi-arena policy making; & the impact of new policy fashions, reflecting knowledge & ideas that can act as a virus-like threat to existing policy communities. 90 References. Adapted from the source document.

Why do policies change dramatically? Most prominent theories and many empirical studies of policy change address that question with attention to external shocks to policy systems or focusing events. These shocks or events are usually described as unplanned, unpredicted jolts such as global crises or natural disasters. I assert a role for focusing projects. These planned activities continue traditional priorities in an issue but do so to a degree perceived as excessive by enough people to shatter seemingly stable policy systems. I then propose a theoretical framework to explain the varying impacts from such projects. The framework uses two dimensions: one that accounts for the mobilization of pro‐change forces and one that assesses policy learning by members of pro‐status quo coalitions. I examine this framework in the context of changes to dam‐building policies in four diverse political settings: United States, Australia, Canada, and China. I find intriguing similarities between the focusing projects in these different contexts but also considerable variation in the extent to which they produce policy change.

Expert involvement is usually regarded as one of the causes of policy changes. However, how does the nature of policy change, in turn, influence expert involvement? This study constructs an analytical model by adopting and developing policy network and principal-agent theories, suggesting that expert involvement can be regarded as the result of the inherent characteristics of policy change in the Chinese policy process. Two key characteristics of policy change, namely 'loss embeddedness' and 'knowledge complexity', are employed to form four types of policy changes. Empirically, a comparative study with four policy change cases illustrates that Chinese experts adopt four behavioural strategies, such as linear access, outside-in enlightenment, deprofessionalized campaign, and locked-out, in different types of policy change. These policy change cases include the new-type rural cooperative medical care system, the new urban medical care system, revocation of detention and repatriation system, and the new economically affordable urban housing policy. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractMy research objective in this article is to analyze policy change affecting wildfire suppression programs administered by the United States Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior. Using a variant of the punctuated equilibrium approach, a content analysis of New York Times stories dealing with wildfires over the past two decades was examined in relation to both administrative and legislative policy changes. I conclude by suggesting that administrative shifts were undertaken by federal land administrators in response to crises and media attention to protect decisional autonomy as well as forest resources, while the architect of legislative change was a president taking advantage of the combined effects of increasingly intense wildfire seasons, demographic shifts involving the movement of people and structures to the high‐risk wildland urban interface areas, greater media scrutiny, and pressure to act from wildfire weary constituencies.

This paper sets out to develop an improved framework for examining critical junctures. This a priori framework is a significant improvement over existing critical juncture frameworks that lack any predictive element. It is an advance for historical institutionalism in particular, and political science in general. After the new framework is set out in detail here, it is tested. The framework is used to examine a number of potential critical junctures in macroeconomic policy, drawn from Ireland, Sweden, Britain, and America in the latter half of the twentieth century

This article examines one of the causal concepts in the second advocacy coalition framework (ACF) policy change hypothesis: the notion that major policy change will not occur as long as the advocacy coalition that instated the policy status quo remains 'in power' in a jurisdiction. It examines the role of this causal concept in ACF theory. It then reviews existing scholarship on the causal concept, identifying relevant empirical evidence and critically examining how the concept has been operationalised. A standard operationalisation is proposed, defining status quo advocacy coalitions as 'in power' if they control a veto player in a jurisdiction's policy process. Changes in Canadian firearms policy between 1976 and 2012 are used to illustrate the operationalisation and explore its potential.