Suchergebnisse

Sjoerd Keulen, Monumenten van beleid. De wisselwerking tussen Nederlands rijksoverheidsbeleid, sociale wetenschappen en cultuur, 1945-2002 (Dissertatie Universiteit van Amsterdam; Hilversum: Verloren, 2014, 400 pp., ISBN 978 90 8704 443 5).

This chapter focuses on the category of policy analysts who are located in advisory bodies as scientific experts, explicitly tasked as boundary workers in boundary organizations between science and policy/politics. A brief introduction (section 1) sets out the manifold and complex modes of science-informed policy advice in the Netherlands. These will be interpreted through a minimalist multilevel framework for science-informed policy advice as boundary work (section 2). At policy politics level (section 3), it will be argued that one may distinguish between advisory arrangements fit for (relatively) structured and (relatively) unstructured problems. At ideological level (section 4), at least three policy styles may be discerned: a neo-corporatist, a neo-liberal and a deliberative one. In the final section (5), it is argued that there is not one 'Dutch' model, but that the patterns co-evolve and permeate each other, although loaded with ideological and pragmatic disagreements and contradictions

Government information system failures are filling not only newspapers but also parliamentary and administrative reports. This article deals with a case in which information and communication technologies (ICT)–related failure claimed by the media influenced the parliamentary agenda, and intra-governmental relations. Drawing on a narrative analysis of a Dutch parliamentary commission's hearings, it argues that the way the issue was initially framed by the media and then adopted, un-problematized, by Parliament steered the direction of action toward specific administrative solutions, thus shaping the landscape of possible organizational alliances. The article recommends a proactive role of parliaments in framing ICT projects.

Government information system failures are filling not only newspapers but also parliamentary and administrative reports. This article deals with a case in which information and communication technologies (ICT)–related failure claimed by the media influenced the parliamentary agenda, and intra-governmental relations. Drawing on a narrative analysis of a Dutch parliamentary commission's hearings, it argues that the way the issue was initially framed by the media and then adopted, un-problematized, by Parliament steered the direction of action toward specific administrative solutions, thus shaping the landscape of possible organizational alliances. The article recommends a proactive role of parliaments in framing ICT projects.

Post-normal science (PNS) is presented by its proponents as a new way of doing science that deals with uncertainties, value diversity or antagonism, and high decision stakes and urgency, with the ultimate goal of remedying the pathologies of the global industrial system for which, according to Funtowicz and Ravetz, existing science forms the basis. The authors critically examine whether PNS can fulfill this claim in the light of empirical and theoretical work on politics and policy making. The authors credit PNS as an innovative frontrunner in raising important issues regarding the limited problem-solving capacity of ''normal science'' and ''professional consultancy.'' Yet, the authors notice that PNS lacks important considerations about the governance of problems and aspects of participatory and deliberative democracy. PNS in effect implies that methodological ''ratiocination'' would prevail over political deliberation and democratic interaction and that merely changing scientific input in public policy making would have the power to change its outcomes. This scientistic hubris can be traced back to PNS's origin in concerned scientists' activism, which in effect accessed the political arena through the scientific entrance. The authors conclude that the art of politics needs to come back into the discussion on environmental problems if societal change is to occur.

In this article, we explore how climate change science is connected to climate change governance. When formally institutionalized, as in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), these sites may be referred to as boundary organizations. These institutions engage not only in the quality assessment of scientific research, but also in the design of innovative policy instruments, or evaluation of policy impacts—activities that we refer to as boundary work. Boundary work is inherently 'tricky business'. Science and politics are normally demarcated spheres with different sacred stories. Scientists aspire to 'speak truth to power', while policymakers want 'politics on top and science on tap'. Boundary work endeavors to coordinate these apparently incompatible aspirations. In this article, we describe, analyze, and assess whether, to what extent, and how the major international and some national boundary organizations in climate change governance have been able to avoid over-politicization and over-scientization. We demonstrate that the nature and success of boundary organizations and the ways they work depend on: (1) the degree to which the climate change problem is defined as 'wicked' or unstructured, or as (relatively) 'tame' and structured; (2) the stage of the policy process; and (3) characteristics of the policy network and the socio-political context: the degree to which relevant players insist on strict separation and a linear relation from science to politics, or, alternatively, are tolerant of a blurring of the boundaries and hence a two-way, coproductive relation between science and politics

Annotation, Though democratic government calls for well-designed and implemented policy, there is surprisingly little expert guidance available for policy makers and politicians. Working for Policy fills that gap, addressing the nature of policy work and offering necessary guidance. The contributors bring together academic and experiential knowledge in their analysis and evaluation of what modern policy makers do in given situations and of how such actions contribute to the policy process. This unique book demonstrates how scholars can help to ensure that policy makers can acquire the skills and knowledge required in governing complex modern societies