Suchergebnisse

Although a widely used term in the literature,
much of what we know about "policy capacity" in government
is limited to anecdotal evidence. Policy scholars have
not systematically investigated the ability of policy professionals
to provide good advice in relation to new policy challenges;
indeed many are skeptical that policy capacity (understood
as the potential for "evidence based policy learning")
is an important driver of policy change in the first
place. Despite these empirical and theoretical problems,
governments remain committed to improving policy capacity
in the pursuit of better public policy. This paper offers some
preliminary observations on the difficulty of studying and
operationalizing policy capacity through an examination of
the finance sector in relation to climate change adaptation;
part of a large collaborative SSHRC CEI project. Drawing on
the existing literature on Canadian finance policymaking
dynamics, a survey of policy professionals in the area, and an
illustrative case study, the paper makes two claims. It suggests
that viewing capacity as involving both the cognitive
skills of professionals (or "analytical capacity"), and the
institutional arrangements in which policy research is conducted
(or "governance arrangements"), is a useful starting
point. However, as the findings in this paper highlight, if
capacity is the ability to provide effective advice in relation to
specific problems, then the nature of the problem itself (how
"wicked" or otherwise it might be) will also impact capacity.

ABSTRACTThis paper explores the impact of internationalization on the financial services policy subsystem in Canada. It uses subsystem adjustment as a concept to bring some analytical clarity to how exogenous factors like globalisation and international crises may impact existing policy regimes. Based on examination of globalisation-induced banking deregulation (1987–1991) and the current crisis of securitized banking, the paper argues that the strength of this approach is that it integrates endogenous effects of the existing subsystem in explaining policy changes in response to what are normally treated as exogenous shocks. Careful effort needs to be made to differentiate the processes of external systemic perturbations from subsystem spillovers as these two processes of adjustment and policy change can lead to different policymaking dynamics over the long term.

This paper provides an overview of the Harris Centre's activity during its first ten years in relation to governance and public policy in Newfoundland and Labrador. The "governance and public policy" theme in this anniversary project reflect activities at the Harris Centre that focus on issues of public policy process and institutional design in the province. While "public policy," broadly understood, could comprise the full scope of Harris Centre activities as all of its activities engage in public policy questions broadly understood; the point of this report is to focus less on the insights provided by the Harris Centre on what governments should "do" in any particular policy domain, but rather on how they should be organized and on how the policy process should be managed. With that being said, the Harris Centre's work on public policy and governance is complex. While some of it emerges as a "primary" focus of more directive work by the Harris Centre itself on key concerns in provincial governance, there is also a great deal of public policy and governance analysis as a "secondary" concern in research reports, workshops and presentations that were more centrally focused on questions of policy analysis and the content of existing or alternative policies. Often this secondary concern about institutions and process in a policy area emerges from comments, suggestions, or the summing up of Harris Centre events, reflecting a more "bottom up" process in which analysis of public policy and governance (and needed institutional reforms) was driven by participants. Basically, Harris Centre research, forums, discussion and deliberation frequently mix the consideration of substantive policy issues in a particular area (e.g. problems of forest management) with deliberations on governance (e.g. how forest management policy should be made). While this is entirely understandable, it means that there is considerable breadth to the Harris Centre's work on the topic, albeit often in a "secondary role." Thus, to capture the full scope of these activities and to give a general sense of themes present in the Harris Centre's work, in the end, we have reviewed almost all of the Harris Centre's activities, searching for discussion of public policy and governance. In Appendix 1 we offer a summery of all Harris Centre activity in this area. Far too broad to be discussed in detail in this overview, we have divided our discussion into two sections below. The first overview section focuses on general "thematic" concerns about public policy and governance that emerge in Harris Centre activities where public policy and governance were not the central theme (with some illustrative examples). The second overview section focuses on more direct and focused work led by the Centre in which public policy and governance were the primary focus

AbstractThis article examines policy capacity in relation to climate change adaptation in the Canadian finance sector. Through a meso‐level analysis focused on the level of integration of the finance policy network and a survey of policy professionals in the area regarding climate change issues, the article illustrates both challenges to operationalizing the concept of "policy capacity" and limitations to effective policy capacity on climate change in this policy domain. Though a central concern for governments, improvements in policy capacity require more attention to network integration and governance arrangements if governments are to effectively respond to the unique challenges posed by climate change adaptation.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to document Canadian financial services regulatory reform, illustrating how existing institutional fragmentation has undermined capacity to effectively learn from the global financial crisis.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on government documents, public comments and interviews with key individuals in the reform process to document the different institutional responses to the crisis.FindingsThe case highlights concerns raised in the policy subsystems literature that the capacity for "learning", even from events as significant as the financial crisis, can be undermined by poor institutional arrangements which create incentives for policymakers to support self interested and limited analysis.Practical implicationsThe case suggests that effective learning in a complex sector requires that there be a national regulator charged with broad independent analytical responsibilities to ensure that the industry is effectively regulated. Existing fragmentation of responsibilities, combined with the interests of the industry and the current government in deflecting new regulatory rules, has meant that existing government expertise has not been effectively deployed.Originality/valueThe paper offers an important corrective to the existing view of Canadian financial regulation and is a compelling illustration of how poor institutional arrangements and ambiguous jurisdictional responsibilities can impede effective policy capacity in relation to learning.

This thematic issue sprung from a desire to encourage more dialogue across subfields in the study of politics and governance on how we understand the emerging practices of global governance. Shifts in global power, the emergence of new organizations and regimes and the ever-increasing complexity of interstate cooperation have all contributed to increased interest in "governance" and the role supranational organizations play in managing globalization, regionalization and regional integration. They have also contributed to increased theoretical diversity in how "governance" should be studied. While international politics scholars, drawing on constructivist literature, have placed considerable emphasis on the development and diffusion of norms; others have drawn on the insights of comparative politics, public policy and political economy to study similar issues. While the legacy of older disciplinary boundaries continues to isolate new theoretical developments, it is clearly the case that there is a high degree of complementarity in the study of governance, particularly in the emphasis on "norms" or "ideas" and their level of institutionalization.

This thematic issue sprung from a desire to encourage more dialogue across subfields in the study of politics and governance on how we understand the emerging practices of global governance. Shifts in global power, the emergence of new organizations and regimes and the ever-increasing complexity of interstate cooperation have all contributed to increased interest in "governance" and the role supranational organizations play in managing globalization, regionalization and regional integration. They have also contributed to increased theoretical diversity in how "governance" should be studied. While international politics scholars, drawing on constructivist literature, have placed considerable emphasis on the development and diffusion of norms; others have drawn on the insights of comparative politics, public policy and political economy to study similar issues. While the legacy of older disciplinary boundaries continues to isolate new theoretical developments, it is clearly the case that there is a high degree of complementarity in the study of governance, particularly in the emphasis on "norms" or "ideas" and their level of institutionalization.