Suchergebnisse

Think tanks are proliferating. Although they are outside of government, many of these policy research institutes are perceived to influence political thinking and public policy. This book develops ideas about policy networks, epistemic communities and policy learning in relation to think tanks

Think tanks are proliferating. Although they operate independently of governments, many of these institutions, including the well-known Brookings Institution in the U.S. and the Institute for Economic Affairs in Britain, have considerable influence on political thinking and public policy. In this innovative work, Diane Stone develops several ideas about policy networks, epistemic communities and policy learning in relation to think tanks.

The 'policy entrepreneur' concept arises from the Multiple Streams' theory of agenda setting in Policy Studies. Through conceptual stretching', the concept is extended to global policy dynamics. Unlike 'advocacy networks' and 'norm entrepreneurs', the discussion addresses the strategies of 'insider' or 'near-governmental' non-state actors. The analysis advances the policy entrepreneur concept in three directions. First, the discussion develops the transnational dimensions of this activity through a case study of International Crisis Group. Second, rather than focusing on charismatic individuals, the discussion emphasizes the importance of organizational resources and reputations for policy entrepreneurship and access into international policy communities. Organizations maintain momentum behind policy solutions and pressures for change over the long term when individuals retire or depart for other positions. Third, the discussion outlines four distinct entrepreneur strategies and techniques that both individuals and organizations cultivate and deploy to enhance their power and persuasion in global policy processes and politics.

This article re-assesses the literature on policy transfer and diffusion in light of what constitutes failure or limited success. First, it looks at imperfect, incomplete or uninformed transfer processes. Second, it addresses the concept of 'negative lesson-drawing' as well as the role of interlocutors who complicate policy transfer processes. Third, the idea of 'transfer' as a neat linear transmission of an intact policy approach is criticised by drawing attention to hybridity, synthesis, adaptation and 'localisation'. Finally, policy 'translation' is a better conceptual framework for comprehending the learning and policy innovations that come with the trial and error inherent in policymaking.

The core argument of this chapter is that expert knowledge is increasingly co-terminous with governance whereby experts in transnational policy communities (TPCs) co-author and co-construct specific global policy institutions such as global and regional partnership programs (GRPPs). TPCs not only engage in extensive networking to share scientific knowledge, but build their own bureaucratic expertise and capacities for making authoritative judgement. Taking this approach towards knowledge(s) that must be translated, helps undermine the frequently encountered ontological separation between the scholar and the policy practitioner, between knowledge and power. Policy-making and knowledge-making are seen as mutually constituted. This becomes manifest in practices such as 'science diplomacy' (Davis and Patman, 2015; Fähnrich, 2015).

Le G20 est une institution internationale en constante évolution. Grâce aux avancées dans les technologies de l'information et à l'aide des gouvernements nationaux, un certain nombre d'acteurs et de réseaux de la connaissance tentent d'influencer la gouvernance économique mondiale au moyen d'analyses et de conseils stratégiques. Dans le présent article, nous nous intéressons au réseau international que constitue le groupe de réflexion du G20 baptisé « Think20 », ainsi qu'au plaidoyer politique des instituts privés de recherche (comme le Lowy Institute, en Australie, et le Centre for International Governance and Innovation, au Canada), qui sont dans l'orbite de la communauté stratégique du G20. Think20 vient en aide aux processus de gouvernance économique mondiale du G20 en mettant au point des « discours de coordination » en matière d'élaboration et de mise en œuvre des politiques. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Les idées sont importantes, mais les idées qui supposent une réforme majeure des politiques et des innovations doivent le devenir aussi si l'on veut qu'elles aient une influence sur l'action du gouvernement. Les réseaux sont un moyen de diffuser des « discours communicatifs » à de nombreux publics différents — locaux ou internationaux —, ainsi que l'infrastructure permettant de concrétiser et d'amplifier les « discours de coordination » à la base des modèles stratégiques et des propositions de réforme des gouvernements qui doivent motiver leurs propres bureaucraties, de même que collaborer avec des gouvernements étrangers. Dans le présent article, nous analysons certains des outils et des pratiques de réseau en ce qui concerne la recherche du consensus dans les « communautés stratégiques transnationales » qui cultivent la coordination stratégique globale.

The G20 is an evolving international institution. Aided by both advances in information technology and support from home governments, a number of knowledge actors and networks seek to influence global economic governance with policy analysis and advice. This article assesses the international G20 think tank network called Think20 and the policy advocacy of private research institutes (such the Lowy Institute in Australia and the Centre for International Governance and Innovation in Canada) which are in the orbit of the G20 policy community. Think20 assists the global economic governance processes of the G20 by developing 'coordinative discourses' for policy development and implementation. Points for practitioners Ideas matter but ideas that imply major policy reform and innovation need to be made to matter if they are to direct government action. Networks provide one mechanism to broadcast and disseminate 'communicative discourses' to many different publics – local as well as global – and the infrastructure to crystalize and amplify 'coordinative discourses' underpinning the policy blueprints and reform proposals of governments that must motivate their own bureaucracies as well as collaborate with foreign government. This article discusses some of the network tools and practices for consensus building in 'transnational policy communities' that cultivate global policy coordination.

AbstractThe Global Development Network (GDN) and the Researchers Alliance for Development (RAD) are networks linking the professional ecology of the World Bank to the diverse research ecologies of universities and think‐tanks. These 'knowledge networks' can entangle research environments extensively with policy communities and the institutional interests of powerful organizations. Connecting different professional ecologies via networks creates complex sets of relationships between researchers and policy makers. The 'grey areas' of professional overlap highlight the 'co‐production' of (social) science in development policy. The author based her analysis of the dual dynamics of network autonomy and co‐option on participant observation of GDN and RAD as a past member of the governing bodies of both networks.