Suchergebnisse

Diese Dissertationsschrift untersucht, wie der Emissionshandel zu Beginn des Jahrtausends einen Status als 'funktionierendes' Politikinstrument erlangt hat. Auf Grundlage von Reiner Kellers wissenssoziologischer Diskursanalyse wird dieser Prozess als diskursive Konstruktion, also als Interaktion von reflexiven Sprechern und ihren Aussagen, gefasst. Die empirische Untersuchung basiert auf einer Kombination aus Methoden. Ein Datensatz bestehend aus 180 wissenschaftlichen, politischen und rechtlichen Dokumenten aus dem Emissionshandelsdiskurs, veröffentlicht zwischen 1920 und 2003, wird sowohl quantitiativ, mittels bibliometrischen Verfahren, als auch qualitativ, mittels diskursanalytischen Verfahren, analysiert. Diese Kombination von Methoden erlaubt es, die diskursive Konstruktion des Emissionshandels als Abfolge zentraler Übersetzungsleistungen zu rekonstruieren. Zu solchen Übersetzungsleistungen gehören unter anderem Rekombination, Mathematisierung, Herstellung eines Theorie-Praxis Bezuges oder die Erfassung neuer zu lösender Politikprobleme. Die Arbeit schließt mit einer Liste zentraler diskursiver Mechanismen, einer Diskussion der Rolle und Beziehung diskursiver Aussagen erster und zweiter Ordnung, sowie der Konzeptionalisierung der Expertenliteratur zum Emissionshandel als eine Infrastruktur, bzw. ein Dispositif, für ein 'Regieren aus der Ferne'. ; This thesis investigates how the emissions trading policy blueprint gained a status of cosmopolitan authority and legitimacy through discursive construction in the expert literature. The starting point for this investigation is the observation that leading policy makers and analysts refer to emissions trading as a 'working' policy instrument at the disposal of governments around the world. Reiner Keller's sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD) is used to conceptualize the making of the emissions trading blueprint as a process of discursive construction mediated in the interaction of reflexive speakers and their utterances. The empirical analysis rests on a mixed methods approach. A dataset of 180 emissions trading documents from the fields of academia, policymaking and law and with publication years ranging from 1920 to 2003 is analyzed both quantitatively, using scientometric tools, and qualitatively, using interpretative analytics. This approach allows to reconstruct the discursive construction of the emissions trading blueprint as a series of crucial translations in the document network, such as recombination, mathematization, establishing a theory-practice link, or looking for new policy problems. The thesis concludes by presenting a list of discursive mechanisms responsible for making emissions trading appear authoritative, discussing the role of and relation between first- and second-order aspects of the emissions trading discourse, and finally by conceptualizing the expert literature on emissions trading as an infrastructure, or dispositif, for governing at a distance.

Puzzled by the question why evidence-based policy (EBP) thrives despite evidence against it, we reconstruct the development and spread of EBP in inter- and transnational contexts and find that this process is characterised by some of the same dynamics (including 'structural promises' and 'problem chasing') that have also been observed in many policy instruments. We therefore propose a double reframing: EBP is (1) a 'meta-instrument' aiming to establish a particular role for research in policymaking (our ideational reframing) and (2) co-evolving with an 'instrument constituency' motivated not only by normative goals but also by the prospect of securing an occupational niche for itself (our social reframing). Taken together, these reframings reveal the neglected politics behind EBP and prompt us to treat EBP as a political device rather than as an analytical framework to explain how policymaking actually relates to research.

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich. ; This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively. ; Conservation trading has developed as a policy instrument for biodiversity protection. This paper traces the emergence, development, and spread of conservation trading, focusing particularly on the formation and activities of an increasingly transnational policy instrument constituency, namely the actor group that has formed around the policy instrument in its support. The development of conservation trading was predominantly guided by a constituency of dominant business-oriented actors, beginning with mitigation measures in the USA and making later connections to international networks with a similar market-driven orientation for environmental protection. By strategically combining agenda-driven research with the mobilization of political support, this constituency helped to establish conservation trading as a widely acknowledged policy solution applicable to various ecological and sociopolitical contexts. Yet, this was achieved, in part, at the cost of neglecting critical issues, such as the recognition of policy alternatives or socioecological or cultural context particularities. Whereas the development of conservation trading is sometimes portrayed as a rational process of neutral policy learning, this process, through its constituency, has developed a life and political momentum of its own, which must be acknowledged when engaging with the design and implementation of better conservation policies. A forward-looking social policy assessment approach is required, which opens up policy design discourses for debate and reflexive engagement. Acknowledging possible shortcomings with a broad range of concerned societal actors can help to assure policy transparency, add specificity, and increase the sound ecological and societal embedding of conservation trading.

AbstractAs a new concept in policy analysis, instrument constituencies shed light on the 'supply side' of policy-making and thereby fill a gap in our understanding of national and transnational policy dynamics. Policy instruments are not only 'active' because they contain scripts for reordering society but also because they gather a constituency comprised of practices and actors oriented towards developing, maintaining and expanding a specific instrumental model of governing. Instrument constituencies account for a hitherto neglected form of agency and explain the often-observed paradox that policy solutions sometimes chase policy problems, although the former are meant to emerge as answers to the later. We give an outline of the concept as it has been developed so far, formulate propositions, and discuss linkages with established research traditions in policy studies.

We offer a perspective on the making of policy instruments over time. This sheds light on the work that goes into articulating and maintaining instruments as both models and implemented policies, and the social formations that arise therefrom. Drawing on a brief case study of the innovation of emissions trading, we show the role of both functional promises to deliver public-policy outcomes and structural promises concerning new positions for the actors involved. We show how the making of instruments can coincide with the formation of 'instrument constituencies', which consist of entangled practices that cultivate an instrument. Constituencies sustain the instrument and are themselves sustained by the instrument as it persists and expands its realm of validity. We conclude that policy instruments can develop social lives of their own with dynamics that should be taken into account by scholars of innovation in governance. Adapted from the source document.

This volume is an interdisciplinary attempt to insert a broader, historically informed perspective into current political and academic debates on the issue of evidence and the reliability of scientific knowledge. The tensions between competing paradigms, different bodies of knowledge and the relative hierarchies between them are a crucial element of the historical and contemporary dynamics of scientific knowledge production. The negotiation of evidence is at the heart of this process. Starting from the premise that evidence constitutes a central, but also essentially contested concept in contemporary knowledge-based societies, this volume focuses on how evidence is generated and applied in practice—in other words, on "evidence in action." The contributions analyze and compare different evidence practices within the field of science and technology, how they interlink with different forms of power, their interaction with and impact on the legal and political domain, and their relationship to other, more heterodox forms of evidence that challenge traditional notions of evidence. In doing so, this volume provides much-needed context and historical background to contemporary debates on the so-called "post-truth" society. Evidence in Action is the perfect resource for all those interested in the relationship between science, technology, and the role of knowledge in society.

AbstractWhile translational research (TR) aims at changing regulatory and organizational practices in the biomedical field, surprisingly little is known about how practitioners in the lab or the clinic think about translation. Addressing this gap, we present results from a Q-methodological study on the meanings and values associated with translation held by researchers, clinicians, and clinician scientists at two major German biomedical research institutions implementing TR strategies. We identify eight different collective understandings of translation, with respect to both where primary translational problems are located and what the most immediate and effective measures should be. Our findings suggest that there may not be a one-fits-all solution for improving translation and that general regulatory and organizational measures may be less effective than measures addressing specific audiences and their specific viewpoints. TR does, however, work well as an umbrella term in stimulating and orchestrating a productive interaction between various viewpoints, practices, and contexts.

The underlying project "Innovation in Governance" (Grant No. 01UU0906) from which this publication derives is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany. ; The interactive and anticipatory assessment exercise on which this report is based was part of a broader research project that focused on the innovation dynamics of governance instruments in the areas of environmental markets, public participation methods and sustainability transition management. By circulating these workshop results, we seek to contribute to a debate on biodiversity offsets and banking design with regard to constituting political reality in biodiversity conservation models. ; BMBF, 01UU0906, Innovation in Governance

The underlying project "Innovation in Governance" (Grant No. 01UU0906) from which this publication derives is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany. ; The interactive and anticipatory assessment exercise on which this report is based was part of a broader research project that focused on the innovation dynamics of governance instruments in the areas of public participation methods, environmental markets and sustainability transition management. By circulating these workshop results, we seek to contribute to a debate on citizen panel design with regard to constituting political reality in public participation models. ; BMBF, 01UU0906, Innovation in Governance