Suchergebnisse

Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policyoriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue.

La littérature comparée sur les réformes institutionnelles dans les systèmes à niveaux multiples s'appuie sur une tendance pour ainsi dire mondiale en faveur de la décentralisation des fonctions de l'État. On ne sait cependant que peu de choses au sujet de l'impact qu'a (eu) la décentralisation, notamment sur les gouvernements sous-centraux concernés. Quelles sont ses incidences sur les gouvernements régionaux et locaux ? Ces réformes ont-elles également des effets inattendus sur l'échelon sous-central et comment expliquer cela ? Le présent article vise à développer un cadre conceptuel afin d'évaluer les conséquences de la décentralisation sur l'échelon sous-central. Ce cadre a pour but de donner un aperçu des principaux modes et modèles de décentralisation et des hypothèses théoriques en ce qui concerne les effets de la décentralisation et de la recentralisation, ainsi que des approches internationales pertinentes destinées à évaluer et à comparer les réformes institutionnelles. Il propose par ailleurs un ensemble de recommandations analytiques et constitue un fondement structurel pour les différents articles par pays contenus dans ce numéro spécial. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Il est reconnu que les réformes en faveur de la décentralisation ont un rôle essentiel à jouer dans la réalisation de la « bonne gouvernance ». Pourtant, il y a aussi la tentation, dans le chef des gouvernements des États, de décharger de plus en plus de responsabilités en vue de surcharger les échelons locaux de l'État, ce qui peut se traduire par des écarts de performance de plus en plus grands entre les administrations locales infraétatiques. Dans ce contexte, notre article propose un cadre conceptuel permettant d'évaluer les conséquences des réformes dans une approche comparative. Ce cadre analytique pourra servir aux praticiens, afin de conforter leurs décisions à propos des nouvelles stratégies de décentralisation ou des adaptations nécessaires en ce qui concerne les mesures de réforme en cours.

Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policy-oriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue.Points for practitionersDecentralization reforms are approved as having a key role to play in the attainment of 'good governance'. Yet, there is also the enticement on the part of state governments to offload an ever-increasing amount of responsibilities to, and overtask, local levels of government, which can lead to increasing performance disparities within local sub-state jurisdictions. Against this background, the article provides a conceptual framework to assess reform impacts from a comparative perspective. The analytical framework can be used by practitioners to support their decisions about new decentralization strategies or necessary adjustments regarding ongoing reform measures.

AbstractPolicy learning plays an important role during crises, where it can empower effective crisis responses or derail policy . Accordingly, a crisis like the COVID‐19 pandemic has created a surge in research on policy learning. In this article, and more than 3 years from the crisis' onset, we systematically review what COVID‐19 policy learning research has hitherto offered. We take stock of 45 scientific articles to provide an account of where policy learning has been researched, what methods, policy domains, and conceptual approaches were most used, and what new theoretical and conceptual advances have emerged from this growing body of research. Furthermore, we distil the key insights it offers to both scholars and practitioners. In doing so, we point to the theoretical and empirical gaps that future scholarship can address, as well as how can practitioners leverage research insights towards improving policy learning practices during similar crises in the future.Points for practitioners
In creeping crises such as COVID‐19, policy‐makers need to consider the multidimensionality and societal embeddedness of policy issues while designing policy learning processes, particularly in identifying relevant expertise.
Creeping crises evolve over time. Hence, policy‐makers need to continuously re‐align the policy learning processes to match evolving crisis definitions, manifestations, and societal perceptions. This requires continuous context scanning.
In creeping crises, policy learning has considerable time and space interactions. Thus, when designing policy learning processes, policy‐makers need to proactively consider the heterogeneity of policy learning processes across various levels of the governance architecture over time. As such, holistic 'governance' of policy learning processes becomes essential.
Policy‐makers should strive towards minimising perceived political interventions and influences on the policy learning processes, particularly during crises to maintain transparency and public trust.

Policy learning plays a significant role in shaping policy during crises. While scholarship has explored many of the mechanisms and outcomes of such learning, little is known about how policy learning takes place across different levels of a multilevel governance architecture. This is despite their prevalence and influence on crisis responses. Using a case of the Belgian COVID-19 policy response, we explore how policy learning takes place across different levels of multilevel governance within creeping crises, focusing on epistemic policy learning (learning from experts) as one of the most pronounced learning types within such contexts. By means of document analysis, supplemented by primary source data from expert and senior official interviews, we offer an exploratory account of how learning took place at the national and subnational levels. Our findings reveal how the inherent features of the COVID-19 crisis, and the existing multilevel governance architecture broke the policy learning process into smaller heterogenous learning processes at different levels. We find that decentralised approaches to learning provided the space for customised, yet often fragmented policy responses. We also find that institutional legacies, varying degrees of policymaker control over learning, and absence of common approaches to structuring and designing learning processes led policymakers in different jurisdictions to engage in varying policy learning processes. We take stock of these different learning processes and highlight their key features. We conclude by highlighting the implications of these findings for policy learning theory and practice.

AbstractWhile digital policies provide significant value within contemporary governance, not many governments' digital policies are adapted to rapidly changing technologies and associated expectations. The limited adaptability can be explained by governments' focus on institutional shifts as an instrument to generate policy changes. Therefore, this article examines the impact of institutional shifts on digital policy by leveraging the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) as a lens to explore the Belgian federal government between 2000 and 2020. This is done through performing a distributional application of the PET and an explaining‐outcome congruence case study. The results highlight the role of institutional shifts in directing digital policy, but also underscore the importance of other factors (i.e., policy image, attention allocation and/or structure of the political system) and the presence of policy entrepreneurs to explain the (in)stability of digital policy.

AbstractUnderstandings of different policy learning types have matured over recent decades. However, relatively little is known about their nonlinear and interactive nature, particularly within crisis contexts. In this article, we explore how two of the most prominent learning types (instrumental and social) shifted and interacted during the COVID‐19 crisis. To do so, we created a policy learning storyboard of the Belgian COVID‐19 policy response over 2 years (from early 2020 to late 2021). Our analysis highlights the relationships between different epochs of instrumental and social learning throughout the crisis and their implications for policy change. Furthermore, while extant policy learning literature often posits that social learning unfolds over relatively long periods (spanning a decade or more), our empirical account shows that within certain conditions, creeping crises can lead to the creation of long‐term crisis policy‐making paradigms and goals. At this level, accelerated social learning can take place and lead to paradigmatic shifts within relatively shorter periods than in noncrisis conditions. Theoretically, our findings enhance our understanding of policy learning types and their relationships with policy change, particularly within crisis contexts.