Suchergebnisse

Impact evaluators of large-scale and multi-domain policy proposals have had difficulties in aggregating detailed assessment results into summative evaluative conclusions. Assumptions about how to aggregate impacts from micro to macro level across multiple evaluation domains (economic, social, natural environment) differ and different approaches produce different end results. An aggregation problem arises because different policy impacts are not fully commensurable across scales (micro-meso-macro) and across domains of evaluation. A new approach to synthesis of results is proposed that takes incommensurability of policy impacts into account. Detailed impact assessments results are first partially aggregated into an input-output matrix of assessment domains (meso level) and then non-diagonally situated partial aggregates, defined as secondary impacts, are correlated. The aggregation problem is illustrated by the comparative assessment of the sustainability of the development program for the Pomurje region of Slovenia using three methods: micro (no aggregation of impact results), macro (full aggregation) and meso (partial aggregation) approaches. Only the meso approach is consistent with the complexity of the challenge.

AbstractThis paper aims to integrate epistemic versions of deliberative democracy into policy studies in order to develop a policy impact tool (PIT) for e‐rulemaking initiatives. In building its argumentation, the paper assesses and engages with epistemic democracy and online deliberation design while considering policy‐related dilemmas and the specific challenges of deliberative e‐rulemaking. The PIT aims to introduce a concise procedure along with a number of basic indicators that can be used to understand and evaluate the quality of discourse and the policy potential of deliberative e‐rulemaking. In order to build this tool, (a) we rely on the importance of comparative text analysis; (b) we develop a threads index, which will categorize citizens' input in the major arguments spelt out in the deliberation; (c) we propose argumentation and discourse analysis to evaluate arguments vis a vis their justification and identify the policy‐valuable arguments and; (d) we provide a concise procedure and the benchmark for the assessment of the policy potential and impact of the preceding deliberation.

PurposeThis article analyzes the impact of monetary policy on income inequality across 16 advanced economies. The author investigates three key points: (1) the relationship between domestic monetary policy and domestic income inequality, (2) the spillover effect of USA monetary policy (including quantitative easing) on international inequality and (3) the quantitative influence of the monetary policies of both the USA and the Eurozone on the formation of domestic income inequalities.Design/methodology/approachThe author employed the Global Vector Autoregressive (GVAR) model, which uses Vector Autoregressive with Exogenous Variables (VARXs) models of each economy to build an integrated system that enables us to evaluate individual responses to global shocks.FindingsThe author's analysis reveals that (1) contractionary monetary policy exacerbates domestic inequality and (2) USA monetary policy, including quantitative easing, affects international inequality. Furthermore, the author's variance decomposition analysis highlights that USA monetary policy is especially influential on income inequality in Norway and Sweden. Additionally, the cointegrating analysis confirms that monetary policy's impact on inequality persists in the long term.Originality/valueMost of the studies focused on investigating domestic economies as closed economies. However, the author's approach differs in that the author uses the GVAR, which treats all economies as open. This allows us to incorporate the world economy into the domestic dynamics and connect the economies using bilateral trade. Another advantage of the GVAR is that it captures spillover effects by modeling each economy and constructing the international economy.