Suchergebnisse

"Foreign Policy Change" published on by Oxford University Press.

This article reviews the concept of policy entrepreneurship and its use in explaining policy change. Although the activities of policy entrepreneurs have received close attention in several studies, the concept of policy entrepreneurship is yet to be broadly integrated within analyses of policy change. To facilitate more integration of the concept, we here show how policy entrepreneurship can be understood within more encompassing theorizations of policy change: incrementalism, policy streams, institutionalism, punctuated equilibrium, and advocacy coalitions. Recent applications of policy entrepreneurship as a key explanation of policy change are presented as models for future work. Room exists for further conceptual development and empirical testing concerning policy entrepreneurship. Such work could be undertaken in studies of contemporary and historical policy change.

The evolution of public policies in the US has been characterized as a process involving long periods of stability followed by abrupt episodes of substantial change. In this project, we identify strands in the literature & synthesize policy theories into a policy regime model useful in explaining both stability & change. This model focuses on power arrangements, policy paradigms, & organization factors that operate to maintain long periods of stability. We demonstrate how stressors -- catastrophic events, economic crises, demographic changes, shifts in modes of production, & others -- impact policy regimes & create pressures for change. We argue that the process of policy regime change -- the abrupt episodes of substantial change -- occurs with changes in the policy paradigm, alterations in patterns of power & shifts in organizational arrangements. The old policy regime disintegrates & the new one emerges with a new policy paradigm, new patterns of power & new organizational arrangements that operate to maintain long periods of stability. 68 References. Adapted from the source document.

Policy change is recognized for underlying much of the success of tobacco control. However, there is little evidence and attention on how Asian American and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AA and NHPI) communities may engage in policy change. Challenges for AA and NHPI communities include the racial/ethnic and geographic diversity, and tobacco data accurately representing the communities. Over the past decade, the Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment, Advocacy and Leadership (APPEAL) has worked to develop and implement policy change for AA and NHPI communities. This article describes APPEAL's 4-prong policy change model, in the context of its overall strategic framework for policy change with communities that accounts for varying levels of readiness and leadership capacity, and targets four different levels of policy change (community, mainstream institution, legislative, and corporate). The health promotion implication of this framework for tobacco control policy engagement is for improving understanding of effective pathways to policy change, promoting innovative methods for policy analysis, and translating them into effective implementation and sustainability of policy initiatives. The APPEAL strategic framework can transcend into other communities and health topics that ultimately may contribute to the elimination of health disparities.

Peter Hall's 1993 article came at the same time as a parallel body of literature was developing, some building explicitly, some only implicitly, on similar ideas. I review some literature on policy communities, ideas, and the nature of policy change before exploring the statistical distribution of budget changes at three levels of aggregation. The similarity of these results suggests that a single process may be at work rather than different processes for first-, second-, and third-order change, as Hall's original formulation has it. As Hall suggests, these processes typically generate only marginal adjustments but occasionally create fundamental change. The degree of discredit to the status quo may be an important unexplored variable in explaining the ability of policy reformers to enact marginal, substantial, or fundamental policy changes. In sum, this article shows the similarities and mutual value of Hall's approach with others that would appear to be starkly contrasting. Adapted from the source document.

The evolution of public policies in the United States has been characterized as a process involving long periods of
stability followed by abrupt episodes of substantial change. In this project, we identify strands in the literature and
synthesize policy theories into a policy regime model useful in explaining both stability and change. This model
focuses on power arrangements, policy paradigms and organization - factors that operate to maintain long periods of
stability. We demonstrate how stressors - catastrophic events, economic crises, demographic changes, shifts in modes
of production, and others - impact policy regimes and create pressures for change. We argue that the process of policy
regime change - the abrupt episodes of substantial change - occurs with changes in the policy paradigm, alterations
in patterns of power and shifts in organizational arrangements. The old policy regime disintegrates and the new one
emerges with a new policy paradigm, new patterns of power and new organizational arrangements that operate to
maintain long periods of stability.

Peter Hall's 1993 article came at the same time as a parallel body of literature was developing, some building explicitly, some only implicitly, on similar ideas. I review some literature on policy communities, ideas, and the nature of policy change before exploring the statistical distribution of budget changes at three levels of aggregation. The similarity of these results suggests that a single process may be at work rather than different processes for first‐, second‐, and third‐order change, as Hall's original formulation has it. As Hall suggests, these processes typically generate only marginal adjustments but occasionally create fundamental change. The degree of discredit to the status quo may be an important unexplored variable in explaining the ability of policy reformers to enact marginal, substantial, or fundamental policy changes. In sum, this article shows the similarities and mutual value of Hall's approach with others that would appear to be starkly contrasting.

This book is about congressional policy making, and particularly processes by which congressional policy changes - and does not change. At times in our history Congress has been a policy initiator, at others it has been the bastion of resistance to new directions of government action. It reflects the will of the citizenry at times, while at others its rules and processes have done more to serve the interests of special and minority interests. In this collection of original essays, each presenting new research on the personal, political, and institutional factors influencing congressional polic

1. Introduction -- 2. Historical background of climate change issues -- 3. Climate policy changes in Japan from 1987 to 2005 -- 4. Climate policy changes in Germany from 1987 to 2005 -- 5. Beliefs of actors in Japan and Germany -- 6. The introduction of the cap and trading scheme in Germany : factors to determine the major policy change in Germany -- 7. A comparative analysis of climate policy changes in Germany and Japan : a path to paradigmatic policy change.

Solving the climate change problem by limiting global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will necessitate action by the world's two largest emitters, the United States and China. Neither has so far committed to quantitative emissions limits. Some argue that China cannot be engaged on the basis of its national interest in climate policy, on the ground that China's national net benefits of limiting greenhouse gas emissions would be negative, as a result of significant GHG abatement costs and potential net gains to China from a warmer world. This premise has led some observers to advocate other approaches to engaging China, such as appeal to moral obligation. This Article argues that appeal to national net benefits is still the best approach to engage China. First, appealing to China's asserted moral obligation to limit its GHG emissions may be ineffective or even counterproductive. Even if climate change is a moral issue for American leaders, framing the issue that way may not be persuasive to Chinese leaders. Second, the concern that China's national net benefits of climate policy are negative is based on older forecasts of costs and benefits. More recent climate science, of which the Chinese leadership is aware, indicates higher damages to China from climate change and thus greater net benefits to China from climate policy. Third, the public health co-benefits of reducing other air pollutants along with GHGs may make GHG emissions limits look more attractive to China. Fourth, the distribution of climate impacts within China may be as important as the net aggregate: climate change may exacerbate political and social stresses within China, which the leadership may seek to avoid in order to maintain political stability. Fifth, the costs of abatement may decline as innovation in China accelerates. Sixth, as China becomes a great power in world politics, and as climate change affects China's allies, leadership on climate policy may look more favorable to China's elites. Seventh, the design of the international climate treaty regime itself can offer positive incentives to China. Taken together, these factors point to a potential and even ongoing shift in Chinese climate policy. They illustrate how the international law and politics of climate change depend on domestic politics and institutions. And they suggest that the United States, if it too takes effective action, can make the case for enlightened pragmatism as a basis to engage China in a cooperative global climate policy regime.