Suchergebnisse

Abstract
In the face of the complexities of problem-solving , experts are gaining centrality in policymaking (Weiss, 1979). At the same time, they are increasingly challenged in their legitimacy, which is not only technical but also political. Challenges to the legitimacy of experts suggest that other types of legitimacy are important for policymaking. Issues of legitimacy are particularly important for sound policymaking when the authority of experts and the value of evidence are contested and when the debate over policy solutions is particularly conflictual and ideological. In this paper, I use three exploratory cases of the use of expertise in education policy in Italy to show how policymakers design different advisory committees to enhance different types of legitimacy (epistemic, bureaucratic, and political). The findings suggest that while policymakers design advisory committees primarily to meet their legitimacy needs, the legitimacy of a decision requires different types of sources to generate consent and to allow for the impact of expertise.

AbstractAs part of local welfare in Italy, housing policies underwent reforms that emphasized the role of local governments—and cities in particular—in the definition of the problem and in the elaboration of possible solutions. Housing is quite neglected in the political debate, but it is increasingly important for responding to citizens' demands in times of economic crisis. This paper reconstructs the policy process in two Italian cities, Turin (1997–2011) and Florence (1995–2011). The paper argues that policy change in housing can be fostered by a local political leadership that invests ideational, relational, and positional resources in policy making to spread new ideas, build networks of public and private actors at the local level, and attract fiscal resources while taking advantage of windows of opportunity at different institutional levels. Moreover, collaboration with local bureaucratic leadership proves fundamental to promoting innovative policies.

The social sciences have often used leadership as a concept to describe the role of agency in change. Nonetheless, what leadership is and does may not always be clear, especially in the loose networks of local governance. On taking a policy analysis perspective, policy leadership in cities can be seen as coordinated action to achieve a shared goal taken by more than one leader, each endowed with different resources that may suddenly become strategic during the policy process. This paper thus proposes a theoretical reflection on policy leadership and uses a case study in urban planning to unpack power relationships involved in policy change at the municipal level. The contribution of the paper is twofold. First, it clarifies the concept of leadership in different social sciences and proposes an original application to the analysis of the policy process in local governments based on a typology of styles of policy leadership and a classification of strategic resources. Second, it argues for the existence of a policy leadership in the process of urban planning in Turin (1993-2011) as a key component of the complexity of urban governance, by focusing on the situated and strategic nature of exchange relationships. Adapted from the source document.

Dans un pays de tradition napoléonienne comme l'Italie, les cabinets ministériels ont traditionnellement été des acteurs centraux du système politisé de conseil politique tandis que l'élaboration des politiques fondée sur la preuve a d'ordinaire été marginale. Néanmoins, de récentes évolutions du système politique ont ouvert davantage le système napoléonien de conseil politique aux scientifiques et aux experts. Dans ce contexte, le rôle des organismes publics de recherche en tant que conseillers illustre un changement intéressant qui pourrait favoriser le développement d'une approche fondée sur la preuve alors que les pratiques en matière de conseil évoluent. Nous étudions ces évolutions à travers une étude de cas portant sur 20 organismes publics italiens de recherche auxquels il est fait appel en raison de leur influence en matière de conseil ou pour aider à la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques en participant au travail d'élaboration des politiques. Nous avons recueilli des éléments en procédant à une analyse de documents et à des entretiens approfondis, et en exploitant les réponses à un questionnaire soumis à ces organismes publics de recherche. L'étude montre un changement dans la façon dont le conseil politique est conçu et une ouverture vers l'innovation. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens L'élaboration des politiques fondée sur la preuve se développe également dans des pays qui disposent de moyens politiques limités. Il arrive que les organismes publics de recherche soient chargés d'exécuter différents travaux d'élaboration des politiques, notamment de fournir des conseils fondés sur des données probantes et de mettre en œuvre des politiques. L'autonomie financière et la réputation d'un organisme public de recherche ont une incidence sur son rôle de conseiller. Le conseil politique est défini comme le résultat d'une mise en correspondance d'une demande politique incertaine et de l'offre d'une expertise.

In a Napoleonic country such as Italy, ministerial cabinets have traditionally served as central advisors in the politicised policy advisory system (PAS), while evidence-based policy-making has usually been marginal. Nevertheless, recent developments in political systems have pushed for the pluralisation of the Napoleonic PAS toward a stronger demand for scientific and expert advice. Against this backdrop, the role of government research institutes (GRIs) as advisors represents an interesting change that could potentially fuel the development of an evidence-based approach in a period of changing advisory practices. We investigate these developments through a case study concerning 20 Italian GRIs that are engaged as influential advisors or recruited to support implementation through policy work. We obtained evidence through document analysis, in-depth interviews, and a questionnaire administered to the 20 GRIs. The overall picture displays a shift in conceiving policy advice in the political system and opens the door to innovation. Points for practitioners Evidence-based policy making is expanding also in countries with scarce policy capacities. Government research institutes may be asked to perform different policy works, including evidence-based advice and also implementation tasks. The financial autonomy and reputation of the government research institute matter for their advisory role. Policy advice is described as the result of the matching between a contingent political demand and the offer of expert knowledge.

Policy entrepreneurs are considered key actors in public policy. However, there are so many definitions of what they can do that it is difficult to use this concept in a systematic, analytical way. Starting with a critique of the tendency to overstretch the concept of the policy entrepreneur, we propose a more parsimonious conceptualisation by de-personalising entrepreneurial actions and by focusing on a specific pattern of action whose main task is to promote innovation. Thus, policy entrepreneurship is conceptualised as a pattern of action (involving different types of actors) focused on innovation promotion that is pursued by activities such as framing a problem, developing solutions, building a coalition in support, and seeking opportunities and attention. We also highlight prevalent resources for those activities. We then apply this conceptualisation to two cases of urban planning in Italy to discuss the activities of successful policy entrepreneurship as a collective effort.

Despite the relevance of structures and constraints to the outcomes of policy‐making, agency emerges as a key aspect in accounting for policy dynamics. Indeed, agency is a concept that may embrace different components according to their empirical reference and policy context.In policy studies, different agents are conceptualized to be relevant in policy‐making, but they address the issues of similar individuals who randomly jump into the policy process to make a specific contribution. This paper proposes to de‐personalize agency in policy dynamics by arguing that the different types of agents can be attributed to specific patterns of action and that related tasks are a necessary element of stability and change in policy dynamics. Thus, we propose three types of patterns—entrepreneurship, brokerage, and leadership—and we show how the use of these concepts can help to better order, describe, and grasp agency in policy dynamics.