LIST OF PANELS

Crowdsourcing, citizen panel, world cafe are all methodologies to foster a direct involvement of citizens into public decisions. Some countries encourage digital participation at the stage of agenda settings, as some western government did through the e-government move. Latin American countries encouraged wide on-site population design of public policies and citizen accountability in the monitoring of policy implementation with participatory institutions such as councils and conferences (Isunza Vera & Gurza Lavalle,2010; Cruz & Daroit, 2017). Initiatives multiplies, with their load of disappointments and complexities regarding how to keep mechanisms time efficient for the population and for managers and policy makers (Cunill-Grau, 2014). Arnstein long mentioned weaknesses and lack of authenticity in participatory process (Arnstein, 1969).

Challenges to keep both voices in balance, the voice of policy makers and  the voice of the population, are numerous. Methodology-wise, one needs to capture precise information from the population that can bring up generic comments. Also, the question of best instruments to enable authentic participation of the population is relevant (Halpern, Lascoumes, Le Galès, 2014). Value-wise, one has to combine potentially divergent set of opinions from the population and from decision-makers. Ethically-wise, great care has to be taken for prevention of the cooptation of the population by interest groups defending one agenda, etc.

We propose to host researchers interested in intersectoral public policy governance, especially those converging interest in both participatory and multi-sectoral experiences. Hence, this panel aims at recognizing complex state tactics (Smits et al 2016; Smits 2018, Cruz & Daroit, 2017a) responding to population demands.

We intend to generate debate around empirical and/or theoretical advances with respect to structural/cognitive/ethical aspects of governing intersectoral policies with the population, sharing arguments on new axis for research. Scholars with supportive and critical experience are welcome. We will prioritize papers on review, multiple cases and comparatives cases, intriguing or disturbing single case study are also welcome.

Therefore, the indicative panel questions are:

1. Which are the conditions (i.e. structures, practices and values) to enable governance of intersectorial policies with the population (i.e. arenas, morphologies and instruments that are entailing transversally the public action among societal groups and government agencies, autonomous actors in binding institutional environment)?
2. At the policy design stage, who is able to participate? Why? How?
3. Where, in which settings, are complex policies proposals being designed with or for the population? How are these hybrid arenas among population, public servants and politicians being organized?
4. Which kind of instruments are being mobilized to link actors and projects from multiple sectors, institutions and branches?
5. Which kind of relations are produced among the actors involved in intersectoral management policies? How?
6. Which results have risen up from the mobilization of the population in intersectoral initiatives?
7. What theories are informative to understand the governance of intersectoral policies  with the population?

References:

Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35(4), 216-224

Cruz, F. N. B., & Daroit, D. (2017). Das vias para o desenvolvimento democrático: regimentos internos de conselhos de políticas públicas como instrumentos de ação pública transversal e participativa." GIGAPP ESTUDIOS. V. 66-72, p. 231-254.

Cruz, F. N. B., & Daroit, D. (2017a). Dos nexos efêmeros ao fazer estado: ensaio sobre transversalidade em conferências nacionais de políticas públicas. NAU Social, 8(15).

Cunill-Grau, N. (2014). La intersectorialidad en las nuevas políticas sociales: Un acercamiento analítico-conceptual. Gestión y política pública, 23(1), 5-46.

Isunza Vera, E., & Gurza Lavalle, A. (2010). La innovación democrática en América Latina: tramas y nudos de la representación, la participación y el control social. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social (CIESAS).

Halpern, C., Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2014). L'instrumentation de l'action publique: controverses, résistances, effets. Presses de Sciences Po.

Smits, P., Préval, J., & Denis, J. L. (2016). Prendre en compte la santé dans les politiques publiques. Étude d’un régime de gouvernementalité au Québec. Sciences sociales et santé, 34(2), 45-70.

Smits, Therrien MC, Touati N., Denis JL. (2018) A Complexity Case Study: The Implementation of an Interministerial Policy — A View from Within Government. Journal on Policy and Complex Systems, V. 4(1).

This Panel recognizes contemporary changes in our societies that are reframing the State. The classic fragmented and hierarchic State structures are unable to tackle goals such as promoting gender and race equality, social development, healthy environments or the social participation deepening. Public policy intersectoral management have been approached by researchers and managers as a relevant path to solve multidimensional problems. There are many inquiries regarding strategies to overcome complex (or wicked) public issues, observing coordination, instrumentation, mainstreaming, governance, common goals, articulation, decision-making or bureaucratic organization. Considering both the relevance of intersectoral management to produce effective social policies, the quest for more authentic public participation in framing public policies, and the importance of academic reflexion to understand and improve these initiatives, we encourage academic-practitioners to engage in writing their experiences, and also authors of applied researches to share their discoveries into the authentic involvement of the population in the design of complex intersectoral public policies. In order to host a forum that recognizes initiatives from around the globe, we welcome papers on specific or compared local, regional, national and also transnational population-centered intersectoral management.