Suchergebnisse

AbstractCitizen online participation has become an increasingly important feature of policymaking in nondemocratic regimes. This article explores the question of why nondemocratic governments promote e‐participation tools. To address this question, this research examines the motives for the introduction of the Active Citizen e‐voting platform in Moscow through an in‐depth case study drawing on interviews and qualitative document analysis. The case study identifies a variety of objectives pursued by the Moscow city government with the promotion of e‐participation and relates them to three legitimation strategies, namely, input‐based legitimation, output‐based legitimation and discourse‐based legitimation. The results underscore how controlled e‐participation may combine different legitimation strategies without challenging the distribution of decision‐making power.

This article analyses the use of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and other evidence in educational policy discourse in the context of direct-democratic votes in Switzerland. The results of a quantitative content analysis show that PISA is used by all actors to support a wide range of policy measures and ideological positions. Other evidence, however, is only used to support single specific policy positions. These findings demonstrate the ubiquity of PISA. The article discusses these results in view of the question of whether the incorporation of evidence into policy debates contributes to informed discourse.

When scientific evidence is used in policy controversies, it is always embedded in narrative stories. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) is an empirical framework used to study the role of narratives in public policy. While the NPF has considered the relationship between evidence and narratives from different angles, it has not used a consistent approach in examining how evidence is embedded in narratives. This article develops a categorization of narrative uses of evidence. A narrative use of evidence is defined by the different roles that evidence plays in the plot of a narrative depending on which narrative element is addressed by a given piece of evidence. To distinguish different narrative uses of evidence, the article examines how competing coalitions use the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) study in Swiss direct‐democratic campaigns on school policy. Quantitative and qualitative content analyses of newspaper articles and governmental documents show how evidence may relate to all main narrative elements and may play different roles in the plot of a narrative. The findings demonstrate significant differences in the narrative uses of PISA between coalitions related to the story types and narrative strategies that each coalition uses. Finally, the implications for future NPF research are discussed.

Abstract
This article examines the influence of civil society on Ukrainian anti-corruption policy after the Maidan in 2014. Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we hypothesise that the Maidan events led to a redistribution of formal legal authority in the anti-corruption policy subsystem, opened access to policy venues for civil society actors, and increased leverage of international organisations to push for strict reforms. We test these expectations with a systematic content analysis of primary documents and semi-structured interviews. Findings show that changes in the formal legal authority to make policy decisions led to anti-corruption policy change. The newly adopted policies were largely influenced by civil society actors who had increased venue access after the Maidan. In addition, civil society advocated for strict anti-corruption reforms through international organisation.

AbstractThe policy process frameworks and theories that are currently considered mainstream were originally developed in the United States, before traveling to other countries. Despite their roots in democratic values, these frameworks and theories are increasingly applied to autocracies. Given important differences between democracies and autocracies, this raises questions about the desirability, limitations, and future directions of this development. In response, this article synthesizes findings from studies that apply existing policy process frameworks and theories to autocracies with the aim of assessing the extent to which the theories are, can, and should be used to explain key aspects of the policy process in autocracies. Based on qualitative content analysis of 146 English‐language peer‐reviewed journal articles that apply the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Streams Framework, the Narrative Policy Framework, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory to 39 autocracies, we show that these theories help identify influential institutions, actors, networks, ideas, beliefs, and events. The analysis reveals important differences in policy processes between autocracies and democracies. Future research ought to bring existing literature on authoritarianism and authoritarian politics into policy process research to test existing and new hypotheses.

AbstractEffective communication increases support for policy measures. This article argues that a narrative that portrays a policy's target group as a hero is most effective in generating support for the given policy. The research builds on the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to test the influence of an audience‐as‐hero narrative on the opinion about a new campfire regulation among visitors to a national park in Russia. A survey experiment with 314 visitors to the national park compares the influence of a narrative portraying the regulation's target group as a hero (a park visitor) on policy opinion and a narrative portraying another hero (a firefighter). Results show that the audience‐as‐hero narrative has more influence on policy support than a nonnarrative message and also more than a narrative portraying another hero. This indicates that audience‐as‐hero narratives are particularly effective in generating support for policies.Related ArticlesCrow, Deserai A., Lydia A. Lawhon, John Berggren, Juhi Huda, Elizabeth Koebele, and Adrianne Kroepsch. 2017. "A Narrative Policy Framework Analysis of Wildfire Policy Discussions in Two Colorado Communities." Politics & Policy 45(4): 626–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12207.Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Mark K. McBeth, and Paul L. Hathaway. 2011. "Narrative Policy Framework: The Influence of Media Policy Narrative on Public Opinion." Politics & Policy 39(3): 373–400. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2011.00295.x/abstract.Smith‐Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. "Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States." Politics & Policy 44: 1053–88. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12187/full.

Abstract
Why does a regime that is predominantly characterised by conservative ideology introduce opioid substitution therapy (OST), a liberal policy? This article applies the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to examine the introduction of OST in Belarus. Methodologically, the research draws on qualitative content analysis of drug policy documents and reports as well as on interviews. Results show how an increased HIV prevalence among injecting drug users opened a policy window in the problem stream. The increase in HIV cases could be used by a network of global and local policy entrepreneurs to frame OST as a public health policy instead of a drug policy measure. Findings suggest that, in nondemocratic regimes, global policy entrepreneurs can play a dominant role in introducing new policy ideas. However, the sustainability of the policy change remains questionable when acquiescence by key policymakers is lacking.

Abstract
This article argues that evidence, even when used politically, contributes to high‐quality democratic discourse. Research results on the use of evidence in referendum campaigns in Switzerland show that (1) evidence fosters discourse quality and shifts the focus away from politics to policy; (2) evaluations and basic research contribute positively to discourse, but not opinion surveys and statistics; (3) the participation of experts and administrative practitioners in discourse is crucial to make evidence available to the public; and (4) evidence is always used as a part of a narrative and can alter the constructed images used in a story. In conclusion, the implications for practitioners are discussed.

This article asks the question of how the political use of evaluations enriches democratic discourse. It builds on the results of a multi-year research project on the use of evaluations in direct-democratic debates in Switzerland in the fields of health and education. The results of quantitative and qualitative content analyses of documents related to 221 votes and a split-ballot survey show that the use of evaluations provides policy-relevant information and substantive justifications, leads to less normative arguments, and increases interactivity of discourse. However, evaluations are particularly used by elite actors in their argumentation, but also to receive information on policies. This leads to a separation of the arena of deliberation in an expert discourse that includes empirical evidence and a lay discourse that eschews empirical knowledge.

Why does a regime that is predominantly characterised by conservative ideology introduce opioid substitution therapy (OST), a liberal policy? This article applies the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to examine the introduction of OST in Belarus. Methodologically, the research draws on qualitative content analysis of drug policy documents and reports as well as on interviews. Results show how an increased HIV prevalence among injecting drug users opened a policy window in the problem stream. The increase in HIV cases could be used by a network of global and local policy entrepreneurs to frame OST as a public health policy instead of a drug policy measure. Findings suggest that, in nondemocratic regimes, global policy entrepreneurs can play a dominant role in introducing new policy ideas. However, the sustainability of the policy change remains questionable when acquiescence by key policymakers is lacking.

AbstractThe last decade has seen the rise of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) as a valuable theoretical framework for advancing knowledge of the policy process. In this article, we investigate the NPF's "travel" capacities across geographies, political systems, policy fields, levels of analysis, methodological approaches, and other theories of the policy process. We assess these capabilities by reviewing extant research and mapping newly explored territories. While we find that the NPF embodies all necessary conditions to travel to different settings, the empirical applications remain largely confined to the U.S. and European contexts, environmental policy, the meso level of analysis, the use of content analysis of documents as a methodological approach, and only a few combinations with other theories of the policy process. Our findings indicate that the NPF can travel well. However, we call for further research to conceptualize the NPF's macro level, to replicate NPF scholarship beyond liberal democratic institutional contexts, and to affirm the framework's capacity to be generalizable in varied settings.

AbstractThe Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) explains the role of narratives in policy processes. The NPF was developed for democratic contexts and has not been systematically applied in a nondemocratic setting. This study fills this gap with an empirical analysis of narrative strategies used by governmental and oppositional actors in urban policy debates in Moscow. Results show how governmental actors consistently use angel shifts, contain issues, and avoid using causal mechanisms, while actors opposing governmental policy use devil shifts, expand issues, and use intentional causal mechanisms. The findings suggest that narrative strategies differ depending on whether policy actors seek to promote policy reforms or draw attention to problems. We argue that policy actors' objectives are a well‐suited predictor for narrative strategies in both democratic and nondemocratic contexts.

AbstractPublic problems are not complex per se but are defined as such. This article explores how problem definition in terms of complexity is strategically used in narratives to expand or contain a policy conflict. We draw on the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to examine how actors use narratives to define problems and link these problems to solutions and characters. Empirically, we examine narratives used in the Moscow waste management debate by drawing on content analysis of online texts and interviews. The results show that government actors seek to contain conflict by assigning less complexity to the waste problem than nongovernmental actors, who expand conflict by defining the waste problem as politically complex. Narratives with high problem complexity include many victims and villains and propose multifaceted and institutional solutions, while narratives with low problem complexity focus on technocratic solutions. Implications for the Russian waste controversy and the NPF are discussed.