LIST OF PANELS

Three decades ago, researchers started pointing out a shift in power towards the courts as a worldwide phenomenon (Hirschl 2008, Tate and Vallinder 1998). Since then, research on courts and their role in politics and policy-making has proliferated around the globe. Concepts to describe the phenomenon of judicialization have diversified and research that started out on the national level now includes supra- and international courts and infra-national judicial bodies. Despite several decades of research, empirical research on the judicialization of public policy has remained sketchy and there are several challenges to address on the theoretical and empirical level: The vagueness of the concept of judicialization makes it a catch all term used on any occasion where courts render policy relevant decisions. As Barnes and Burke (2020) suggest, we should think about judicialization as a just one of form of authority: « To say anything meaningful about how and why growing judicialization matters, we must compare the social and political consequences of the alternative forms of authority—expert, legislative, executive—that judicialized structures displace (or, more likely, are layered on top)”. (2020: 15.11). This is particularly promising avenue, as it allows to connect research on judicialization with long-standing debates about administrative, regulatory and policy styles in (e.g., Richardson 1982, Bayerlein and Knill 2019, Howlett and Tosun 2019) and more generally with policy process theories. While there is a consensus that judicialization is not a uniform phenomenon across policy fields and issues, little research comparatively investigates why in some policy fields we observe more court involvement than in others. There is also hardly any research that inquires why policy issues or fields become less judicialized and less adversarial, under what circumstances processes of judicialization might even get reversed. This has to do with the fact that a great part of empirical studies are focusing on important constitutional decisions by apex courts and in the European context on supranational courts, such as the ECJ and the EUCtHR. Empirical research on the judicialization of public policy on the national or subnational level has remained sketchy and does only rarely allow to see variation and investigate what variables of the policy-making process render decision-making and implementation less or more litigious. There is an important lack in theorizing and empirically researching the relationship between different branches of government and the role of courts in policy-making and the concept of judicialization is not sufficiently discussed with respect to other models of power relations between branches because of the exclusive focus on shifting power towards courts. In sum, the panel intends to discuss the following questions: How can our policy theories better account for different forms of authority or different modes of power relations between branches to advance the discussion of judicialized policy making? How can we better explain variation across policy sectors and over time in terms of the judicialization of public policy?

What happens when new policy issues such as emerging technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence) or major crises (e.g. a pandemic) emerge on policymakers’ agenda? How does policymaking on such new issues differ from policymaking in more established contexts? Why do some issues continue to be politically relevant for extended time periods, getting established with specialized actors and dedicated institutions while others disappear? Can the state successfully shape the development towards integrated, specialized policymaking communities for new issues? Questions such as these can be addressed by studying “nascent policy subsystems”. Those “issue areas that have only recently emerged on the public agenda” (Stritch, 2015, p. 438) are characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity (Beverwijk et al., 2008; Fidelman et al., 2014; Ingold et al., 2017). Their study highlights the dynamic character of policymaking: The moment when new issues emerge, are framed, reframed, and disappear; new actors entering the political space and established actors reacting to a new, uncertain situation; new policy solutions being designed in the earliest stages of an issue’s presence on the agenda and previous policy content being changed. Nascent policy subsystems can also affect policymaking in more established policy subsystems, potentially destabilizing or reshaping the landscape of policy subsystems, thus underlining the interrelated nature of policy subsystems, and illustrating the limits of the policy subsystem concept. The concept of the policy subsystem is central to multiple established theories of the policy process (McGee & Jones, 2019), such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Weible et al., 2011), the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993, 2002; Jones & Baumgartner, 2005) or the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) (Kingdon 2011; Herweg et al. 2018). Additionally, nascent policy subsystems bear similarities to concepts used by other strands of public policy research, such as emerging regulatory regimes (Howlett & Newman, 2013). So far, nascent policy subsystems have been most explicitly theorized and studied by scholars from the tradition of ACF (Ingold et al., 2016, 2017). This ACF-driven research has greatly advanced our understanding of nascent policy subsystems. However, we are convinced, that research on nascent policy subsystems can profit from a diversity of theoretical perspectives and that, in turn, several strands of public policy research can profit from applying a nascent policy subsystem perspective. [onsite panel]

General Objective: The panel seeks papers that advance the conceptualization of the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), or its particular elements (streams, policy window, policy entrepreneurs) by applying it to different fields, scopes, and settings (e.g., subnational, national, or supranational) and by using diverse methodologies (quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods designs). More specifically, the panel aims to: 1. Develop communities and provide networking opportunities for scholars sharing the MSF as common theoretical orientation.2. Encourage dialogue among policy process theoretical orientations within a single conference setting.3. Solicit contributions that conceptualize or apply MSF elements on their own as part of additional theoretical orientations to promote the generation of new research agendas. Research Questions: How is policy made under conditions of ambiguity? Scientific Relevance: The panel’s objectives address the essence of the study of public policy. The MSF has emerged as a major framework which analysts use to explain the policy process. We want to further explore the relevance of its hypotheses, especially in developing countries, nondemocracies, sub-national or supranational settings, in order to ascertain its continued usefulness as a tool of policy analysis.

With only a few exceptions, policy studies still tend to be marked by either “methodological nationalism” or “methodological globalism.” The former is the dominant lens on the policy process, one which focuses on the national frame, national institutions, national problems, and national actors. The second is newer, focusing on supra-national policy actors such as international governmental organizations and their role in developing and implementing global public policies, or at least global policy standards and regulations. Examples of work with the second focus include the study of transnational administration, international financial and regulatory bodies, transnational advocacy organizations, as well as policy fields that are intrinsically global in that they are anchored in global public goods such as the environment or health. Work on policy transfer exemplifies this approach as well, researching the ways in which what appear to be domestic or national policies actually “travel” from other jurisdictions (borrowing) or are modelled upon, or imposed by, international organizations. Another burgeoning sub-field is Europeanization studies, where regional frameworks shape and drive national policy making. Research tends to be either in one more or another, though the policy transfer literature does make efforts at connecting global and national/local. Scientifically, this schizophrenia in our understanding of policy processes is no longer tenable. Increasingly, national (and local) policy processes are multi-scalar and nested. They are simultaneously, or with only slight lags, interpellated and entwined. This is due to multiple factors. The sheer interdependence of financial markets and international trade (even with recent pressures to de-globalize) subjects national policy processes to extra-national determinants. This conventional economic interdependence has been magnified by climate change – a public “bad” that it is argued can only be averted through international coordination (Paris Agreement) on emissions targets, which in turn depend on regulation of not only energy but almost everything else. The inexorable mission creep of international organizations such as the UN and its labyrinthine organizations is another contributor. Our understanding of the multi-scalar and nested nature of much of contemporary policy making is still primitive. And this poses the research question that animates the panel: “How can we conceptualize policy processes that are simultaneously global and national, national and local, and give due weight to the causal matrix of variables such as institutions, ideas, and interests in a multi-scalar way that acknowledges the nested nature of policy regimes?” The panel is being proposed by a research team based in Qatar (Hamad Bin Khalifa University), which has been working on SDG education as an example of this multi-scalar and nested phenomenon. The 17 SDGs have, since 2015, become a global agenda (Agenda 2030) with a supporting architecture of policy institutions, actors, reporting apparatus and research. While the SDGs are a global agenda, they simultaneously have national, local and even community impact. Among the hypotheses to explore are: Discourse and framing of policy problems at the national level are heavily influenced by extra-national framings, often originating in international organizations. Policy actors and interests in the national policy space will always include ones that have strong links and connections to international networks – this includes NGOs, transnational corporations, think tanks. In cases where global agendas are embraced by national and local actors, a process of “localization” or translation must always take place, resulting in policy regimes that are nested versions of those global agendas.

Over the past few decades, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has been one of the most applied and investigated approaches for understanding and theorizing the policy process. The framework has provided the basis for three lines of theoretical inquiry, focusing on policy change, policy learning, and the nature of advocacy coalitions. The burgeoning ACF literature includes applications in political systems around the world as well as applications in a wide variety of policy issues and policy sectors. General ObjectivesThe general objective of this panel is to advance the development of the ACF – and the study of policy processes – through a critical stocktaking of current conceptual and theoretical debates in the ACF. This includes issues related to the framework itself, as well as issues pertaining to the ACF’s three theoretical lines of inquiry. Research QuestionsA non-exhaustive list of research questions considered on the panel may include: the general utility of the ACF for understanding policy processes; lessons for policy practitioners derived from ACF findings; potential overlaps and syntheses with other theoretical approaches; ontological issues in the three lines of theoretical inquiry; conceptual issues; methodological challenges; investigations of existing ACF hypotheses; and, propositions of new ACF hypotheses. Scientific RelevanceThe ACF focuses on the essence of government policy-making by conceptualizing and theorizing how civil society pressures are (or are not) translated into public policy outcomes. These questions are especially important in democratic countries in an era when the legitimacy of democracy seems under threat. The panel will provide an important opportunity for ACF scholars to share their work, learn from others’ practices, and build connections, all of which are essential to shared scientific enterprise.

This panel is to discuss new developments, discoveries, and challenges in research applying the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to policy processes. Developed in the USA within the last 15 years, the NPF has started to gain traction in research from other world regions, investigating a plethora of policy fields with a diverse set of methodologies (e.g. Huda, 2019; McBeth & Lybecker, 2018; Weible, Olofsson, Costie, Katz, & Heikkila, 2016; Merry 2016; Jones 2014; Shanahan et al. 2013). Neuroscience has long acknowledged the central role of narratives for human cognition. The NPF takes up this finding by explicitly conceptualizing the human being as a homo narrans, i.e. as individual that uses narratives to make sense and of the world around and communicate this sense-making. The NPF enables researchers to understand the dynamics of policy making by investigating narrative structure and narrative content (Jones and McBeth 2010). The framework defines narrative structure consisting of setting, characters, plot, and moral of the story that can be studied and compared systematically and empirically (Shanahan et al., 2017; Shanahan, Jones, & McBeth, 2011). Recurring character types are the victim suffering from a policy problem, the villain causing the problem, and the hero solving it (Shanahan et al., 2017). According to the NPF, policy actors use narrative content in a strategic way to reach their policy goals. Based on various hypotheses, such as the devil-angel-shift or the scope of conflict, the framework claims that these content-related narrative elements can also be studied using systematic empirical approaches (Jones and McBeth 2010; for studies of the NPF hypotheses cf. for instance Brewer, 2019; Shanahan et al., 2017; Shanahan, Jones, McBeth, & Lane, 2013). The goal of this panel is to enable discussions on new developments, discoveries, and challenges around the NPF. With the NPF still being a relatively young theory of the policy process, many research gaps remain to be filled (cf. also Shanahan et al. in C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, pp. 173–213). Research topics may include (but are not restricted to): · Comparative analyses applying the NPF · Innovative methods · The NPF applied to new policy contexts and geographies · Investigating macro-level narratives · Exploring the role of institutions in the NPF · Non-results using the NPF · NPF applications to post decision-making processes, e.g. policy implementation or evaluation

Policy termination or dismantling has received little attention in the policy literature, conceptually and empirically. Eugene Bardach (1974) identified policy termination as an important phenomenon that had been “wholly neglected by political scientists and scholars” because it is both rare and difficult to study. Work on policy termination since then has been sporadic and remains disconnected from the broader policy literature. There are several reasons for this, beginning with the apparent infrequency of actual cases – if we use a binary classification of termination or non-termination. Moreover, because termination usually imposes losses, it is inherently unpopular, and most attempts to abolish policies fail. Policymakers are more likely to bend to the pressure of mobilized opponents or obfuscate to deflect blame than countenance political reprisal for such decisions. However, although outright termination may be rare, policies are jettisoned in many other ways. Governments worldwide have engaged in the politics of austerity for decades, starting in the 1990s with social policy retrenchment (Pierson, 1994). States have also pursued deregulation in a wide range of sectors, from taxation to environment, in the service of smaller government and the ostensible exigencies of globalization. Finally, Jacob Hacker’s (2004) concept of policy drift captures the many instances of gradual but inexorable policy decay that have occurred through political gridlock, partisan maneuvering, and deliberate inaction. Bauer and Knill (2014) suggest that a focus on policy dismantling or downsizing as a particular form and direction of policy change may be a more fruitful approach than the study of termination as a distinct phenomenon. Dismantling as a form of policy change opens a broader range of termination-type processes for analysis, ranging from retrenchment and deregulation to drift and abandonment, as well as outright abolishment, that lead to policy outputs similar to termination. It also enables meaningful engagement with other strands of the policy literature to revive the moribund study of termination both conceptually and empirically. For example, the welfare state retrenchment literature offers useful insights into how, when, and under what conditions policy dismantling is likely to succeed. It maps the institutional and path dependent dynamics that make policy change difficult and explores policy feedback effects on the motivations and resources of groups to organize and resist change. More recent work on austerity following the 2008 recession highlights the importance of political discourse in justifying cutbacks (“we’re in this together”) and softening resistance by appealing to emotions such as fear and hope. Finally, the coronavirus pandemic brings to the fore questions about the role of punctuation and crisis events in shifting some policy trajectories toward termination. Policy termination is an essential feature of policy change, and likely to become even more important going forward. A global recession following the coronavirus pandemic, an energy crisis resulting from Russia’s war in Ukraine, and the multiple facets of global warming are just some of the reasons that pressure to rationalize and redirect public resources will grow. The goal of this panel is to further explore how and under what conditions policies are terminated or dismantled. The key question underpinning the panel is: how can we better understand and explain policy termination in policy analysis? Bardach, E. (1976). Policy termination as a political process. Policy Sciences, 7(2), 123–131. Bauer, M. W., & Knill, C. (2014). A conceptual framework for the comparative analysis of policy change: Measurement, explanation and strategies of policy dismantling. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(1), 28–44. Hacker, J. S. (2004). Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 243-260. Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge University Press.

The study of public policy has been dominated by theories and experiences of countries in richer Western countries. There are few international platforms for public policy researchers from low and middle-income countries, mostly from the Global South, to disseminate their original work. This has not only confined the understanding of public policies in these countries but also limited the scope of existing academic debate to conceptualise experiences of countries that are less economically developed. There may also be a missed opportunity of knowledge and policy transfer between countries in different regions and with different historical and political backgrounds. This proposed panel aims to provide an intellectual space for public policy researchers from low- and middle-income countries and their counterparts from other parts of the world to explore the policy decision making process in different national contexts. The dialogue would have high scientific relevance and stimulate a discussion that goes beyond the state of the art. It would enrich the knowledge production of public policy mainly in four ways. The first is to contribute to filling the knowledge gap of the public policy process in low- and middle-income countries. The second is to supplement the existing debate of public policy in these countries that is mainly from political science or developmental perspectives. The third is to identify the gaps in existing public policy conceptions and review to what extent they are applicable to the analysis of public policy in these countries. Finally, by focusing on the role and interplay of the state, business and civil society in the decision-making process, the discussion would facilitate comparison between countries from different entry points. The main research questions: 1. To what extent and in what ways is the public policy decision-making process different in low- and middle-income countries? 2. Do low- and middle-income countries share a similar process or have diverse patterns in public policy decision-making? 3. How and to what extent do socio-political and cultural contexts affect the public policy decision-making process in these countries? 4. To what extent are existing public policy concepts and theories appropriate in the analysis of such processes in these countries? Are there any gaps and what are they? 5. What theoretical and practical lessons can be learnt from the study of public policy in low- and middle-income countries? 6. How to make the existing public policy debate (especially comparative studies) more inclusive to research on low- and middle-income countries?

This panel proposes to build on the Pragmatist concept of “transaction” to analyze public policy and policy processes. The concept of a “transaction” was originally introduced by philosopher John Dewey and political scientist Arthur Bentley to describe a dynamic approach to knowledge that did not start with fixed elements. Applied to policy processes, a transactional perspective stresses the co-constitution of policy actors and the policy field iteratively through time through via the mediation of action and meaning. Rather than starting with the fixed preferences, interests, and belief of independent policy actors, a transactional view assumes that they are fluid and will emerge relationally within a given policy situation. There is little in the existing policy studies literature that explicitly applies the concept of transaction to policy processes, with the exception of Kuruvilla and Dorstewitz’s (2010) model of “transactive rationality,” which emphasizes that policy inquiry begins with an “indeterminate situation” (or “enigma” in Boltanski’s terms) and depends on a “community of inquiry.” While their approach focuses on policy analysis, this panel applies the idea to the policy process. As such, it does not assume that policy actors will converge on a singular understanding of policy problems. However, the policy transaction perspective does expect rival interpretations to be progressively articulated with respect to one another—that is, they are co-constituted in the policy situation. A policy transaction perspective emphasizes how policy problems become structured through processes of communication, valuation and reflexivity. Although policy research on “policy definition,” “framing” and “policy discourse” have already take us a long way toward understanding how policy problems are shaped by communication, the policy transaction approach takes us a step further. Adopting what communication theorists have called a “triple contingency” view of communication, the policy transaction approach views communication between ego and alter as taking shape through a perspective that transcends either of their initial perspectives and implicitly takes account of third parties. Thus, policy transactions both depend on and create “publics” that shape problem definition. The co-constitution of policy actors and policy fields also takes shape through processes of valuation where policy actors develop justifications for the worth of certain actions. A policy transaction perspective stresses that values are constructed through and emerge from engagement with specific policy situations. In other words, this approach does not start with competing values and subsequently examine policy conflict; rather it emphasizes how values become articulated and structured in the course of policy conflict.

Background and context From pandemics to climate change, food security, the economy and defense, constellations of actors engage in learning to update their beliefs, understandings, and create meanings that make public policy issues amenable to public policy. It has been argued that public policies are also a way to attribute meanings to action and represent the relationship between a society and its beliefs on the world (Muller, 2009, 8th edition). It follows that the processes through which actors and societies build and change beliefs about problems and policy instruments are key to explaining change. This situates learning processes at the center of decisions about policy instruments, as well as the transformation of policy goals and governance architectures (Bennett & Howlett, 1992; Hall, 1993; Heclo, 1974). In some cases, policy learning can contribute to better policymaking and resilient societies, while in others derail policy, leading to policy failures and fiascos (Dunlop, James, & Radaelli, 2019; Zaki & Wayenberg, 2021). Thus, in adopting a comprehensive understanding of policy learning, we remain agnostic about the final impact of policy learning (being either positive, negative, or even inconsequential). Policy learning research already offers substantial contributions on the micro-foundations of learning, collective, organizational, and social learning, modes, and mechanisms of learning (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2013; Heikkila & Gerlak, 2013; Zaki, Wayenberg, & George, 2022). We also have an important learning in theoretical frameworks of the policy process highlighted by Weible and Sabatier (2017), such as the advocacy coalitions framework, innovation and diffusion models, and the narrative policy framework. However, in these frameworks at least, rarely does policy learning as such takes center stage in theoretical terms. At the same time, there is a flow of conceptual and empirical observations on policy learning in other theoretical regions of policy analysis. Suffice it to mention evaluation theory, decision & information theory, mechanisms-based explanations of change, implementation research, and theories of European integration. Research on polysemy in public policy seems also ripe for a policy learning turn (Cino-Pagliarello, 2022). However, efforts carried out in these regions rarely feed back into building a theoretical architecture of policy learning. Finally, there is research on policy learning as autonomous theoretical lens on policy process (Dunlop and Radaelli 2018, Heikkila and Gerlak, 2013) – in this tradition, learning is not examined as one of the elements of other theories. Instead, it takes center-stage. However, these theorizations have not progressed in the direction of addressing normative questions. General objectives This panel calls for contributions that conceptualize and/or empirically research policy learning across a broad range of the theoretical frameworks of the policy process presented in Weible and Sabatier (2017), but also within other important areas of theoretical and empirical policy research, such as evaluation and implementation. We also invite papers that contribute to systematizing policy learning as autonomous theoretical field, for example by building micro-foundations, exploring the political economy of learning, linking learning and institutional change, and connecting crisis and learning to resilience and socially responsive innovation. To guide our prospective authors, we suggest the following research questions: 1. How does policy learning take place within different theoretical lenses on public policy or stages of the policy process? What role does it play? And to what ends/outcomes? 2. How does research in evaluation, implementation, polysemy, and the other regions of policy research feedback into a deeper conceptualization/understanding of learning? Where is the empirical research that shows that? 3. How is policy learning research developing into a comprehensive understanding of policy processes and policy change? How does that development address normative issues such as the quality of learning and the differential empowerment of actors in policy change? The panel is open to a broad range of ontological and methodological approaches. We will select empirical papers and a handful of theoretical papers. We aim to collect the papers in a special issue of a world-leading journal or an edited book, hence the final discussion will be geared towards this objective of making our findings available to a large audience. Scientific relevance The panel’s scientific relevance is demonstrated by its ambitious conceptual goals, the explicit engagement with theory, and the fact that we address normative issues explicitly. Supporting references - Bennett , C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25, 275-294. doi:10.1007/bf00138786 - Cino Pagliarello, Marina. 2022. "Unpacking Ambiguity in Ideational Change: The Polysemy of the ‘Europe of Knowledge’." West European Politics: 45(4) 884-905 - Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2013). Systematising policy learning: From monolith to dimensions. Political Studies, 61(3), 599–619. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00982.x - Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2017). Learning in the bath-tub: the micro and macro dimensions of the causal relationship between learning and policy change. Policy & Society, 36(2), 304-319. doi:10.1080/14494035.2017.1321232 - Dunlop, C., James, S., & Radaelli, C. (2019). Can’t get no learning: the Brexit fiasco through the lens of policy learning. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(5), 703-722. doi:10.1080/13501763.2019.1667415 - Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britian. Comparative Politics, 25, 275-96. doi:10.2307/422246 - Heclo, H. (1974). Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden: From relief to income maintenance. London: Yale University Press. - Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–511. doi:10.1111/psj.12026 - Muller, Pierre. 2009. Les politiques publiques, de Pierre Muller, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 2009 [8e éd.] - Radaelli, Claudio M. 2022. "Policy Learning and European Integration." JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies early view https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13432 - Zaki, B. L., & Wayenberg, E. (2021). Shopping in the Scientific Marketplace: COVID-19 through a policy learning lens. Policy Design and Practice, 4(1), 15-32. doi:10.1080/25741292.2020.1843249 - Zaki, B. L., Wayenberg, E., & George, B. (2022). A Systematic Review of Policy Learning: Tiptoeing through a Conceptual Minefield. Policy Studies Yearbook, 12(1), 1-52. doi:10.18278/psy.12.1.2

Research on explanations of policy actors’ preferences and behavior in the policy process has drawn on diverse models of the individual and (social) psychological theories. One recently gaining more prominence is the perspective on Social Identities in the Policy Process (SIPP) (Hornung, Bandelow & Vogeler, 2018). Drawing on the Social Identity Approach (SIA) developed by Tajfel (1982) as a theory of intergroup relations, this perspective puts policy actors’ memberships in social groups center-stage and assumes that actors are highly driven in their thinking and behavior by the identification with diverse social groups (Diamond, 2022; Vogeler, Hornung & Bandelow, 2020).This panel invites theoretical, conceptual, and empirical papers that address the role of social groups and identities in policy processes, from agenda setting to policy formulation and decision-making up to implementation. This includes foci at the intersection with network governance research in public management (Lee & Huang, 2022). Potential research questions could include: 1) Researching social identities worldwide in different policy contexts is vital to understand social groups in different settings. How does the relevance of social groups change across borders? What are the research methods to measure social identities, their respective strengths and weaknesses? How could social identities be used as dependent variables, independent variables, or factors in configurations in public policy and management? 2) The focus on social groups allows for cross-fertilization with other theoretical perspectives or disciplines, e.g., advocacy coalition framework (ACF), social capital, sub-group culture, political partisanship, and dark networks. What does the focus on social identities contribute to the explanation of coalition building, within and cross-coalition interaction, faultlines, power constellations, resilience, or gridlock in policy processes? To what extent does the relevance of identities explain differences in policymaking and implementation, e.g., which social groups form, collaborate, and compete? What determines the outcomes of their relations?3) The group-focused insights from social psychology provide fruitful connecting points to policy process research, including questions of polarization (Baldassarri & Page, 2021; Laebens & Öztürk, 2020) and tipping points (Macy et al., 2021). When would polarized social identities reach tipping points, and how to pull polarized communities or policy networks from tipping points? ReferencesBaldassarri & Page (2021). The emergence and perils of polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(50), 1-7.Diamond (2022). Conservative Conservationists: Reconciling Conflicting Identities on Climate Change. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1-18.Hornung, Bandelow & Vogeler (2018). Social Identities in the Policy Process. Policy Sciences, 52(2), 211-231.Laebens & Öztürk (2020). Partisanship and Autocratization: Polarization, Power Asymmetry, and Partisan Social Identities in Turkey. Comparative Political Studies, 54(2), 245-279.Lee & Huang (2022). Identity-based Subgroups and Information Exchange in Adversarial Policy Networks. Journal of Public Policy, 1-27.Macy et al. (2021). Polarization and tipping points. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(50), 1-9.Tajfel (1982). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1-39.Vogeler, Hornung & Bandelow (2020). Farm Animal Welfare Policymaking in the European Parliament – A Social Identity Perspective on Voting Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(4), 518-530.

Policy Process is related to the “interactions that occur over time between public policies and surrounding actors, events, contexts, and outcomes” (Weible 2018, 2). In the 21st century, policymaking processes have increasingly become transnational (Stone, Moloney 2019). However, mainstream policy process theories have traditionally focused on domestic policy change, with a few exceptions, in particular from the field of policy transfer. With the growth of agents, such as international development agencies and multi-stakeholder partnerships fueling transfers across governance levels, policy sectors, agents actors, and networks, this area expanded vertiginously in the past years (Dolowitz, Marsh 2000; Hadjiisky, Pal Walker, 2017; Porto de Oliveira 2021). The study of "transnational policy processes", however, is related to a broader phenomenon than policy transfers. It encompasses different forms of global (Stone, Moloney 2019), international (Petiteville, Smith 2006) and foreign (Morin, Paquin 2018) policy processes and practices. As examples we can take the processes of internationalization of domestic best practices (e.g., Mexican Oportunidades), the localization of global policies (e.g., the Sendai Framework), the development of bottom-up civil society led policy instruments, the implementation of projects by international organizations (e.g., the World Bank), the circulation of knowledge and ideas (e.g., far-right strategies of political campaign), the coordination of national responses to crises (e.g., the WHO role in Covid-19), the evaluation of peacekeeping operations, setting global agendas (such as the SDGs or the Paris Agreement), etc. These are only a few of the current examples of public policy processes involving a transnational dimension. The Panel seeks to advance scholarship on the transnational dimensions of policy process, transcending the policy transfer literature. We expect to provide answers to the following questions: How can transnational policy process be defined? Which theories and concepts are useful in analyzing transnational dimensions in policy making? What are the conceptual challenges in capturing multilevel, multinational, multi-actor processes? Which methodological approaches can be applied to assess policy processes beyond the nation state? Which empirical evidence (from Global South or North) can be used in such studies? Are ideas of the public sphere, citizenship/community or political identity altered and shaped by the transnational policy? References: Dolowitz, David P., and David Marsh. “Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making.” Governance 13, no. 1 (January 2000): 5–23. Hadjiisky, Magdaléna, Leslie A. Pal, e Christopher Walker. Public Policy Transfer: Micro-Dynamics and Macro-Effects. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017. Morin, Jean-Frédéric, e Jonathan Paquin. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox. 1st edition. New York, NY: Palgrave, 2018. Petiteville, Franck, e Andy Smith. “Analyser les politiques publiques internationales”. Revue française de science politique 56, nº 3 (2006): 357. Porto de Oliveira, Osmany, ed. Handbook of Policy Transfer, Diffusion and Circulation. Handbooks of Research on Public Policy. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021. Stone, Diane, and Kim Moloney, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Global Policy and Transnational Administration. First Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Weible, Christopher. “Introduction: The Scope and Focus of Policy Process Research and Theory.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by Christopher Weible and Paul Sabatier, 4th ed., 1–13. New York, USA: Routledge, 2018.

The “public-void policy”: how systemic corruption affects the policy process, and how theories could accommodate it. Oliver Meza, Elizabeth Perez-Chiques, Irma Guerra, Miguel Guajardo Policy process theories have clearly addressed the many factors involved in the policy process. From an agent-driven perspective, politics is widely studied through the actions of interest groups and advocacy coalitions (e.g., Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988, 1993; Weible, 2007), bureaucracies at many levels, including street-level and front-line officials (e.g., Lipsky, 1980, 2010; Brodkin, 2003, 2011), parties (e.g., Schmidt, 1996), politicians (e.g., Arnold, 1990; Kingdon, 1993) and office incumbents (e.g., Svara, 2006). Policy processes have also been explained through other more intangible factors such as public opinion (e.g., Page & Shapiro, 1983; Monroe, 1998; Burstein, 2003), discourse and policy narratives (e.g., Shanahan, Jones, & McBeth, 2011; Jones, 2021), social construction of policy targets (e.g., Ingram & Schneider, 1991, 1993, 1995; Schneider & Ingram, 1993), problem definition (e.g., Bardach, 1981; Rochefort & Cobb, 1993; Baumgartner & Jones 2015) among other technical factors featuring the intricacies of specific policies such as ambiguity in policy objectives (e.g., Matland, 1995; Cairney, Oliver, & Wellstead, 2016), measuring indicators (e.g., De Neufville, 1978; Innes, 1990; Bovaird & Loffler, 2003), evaluation schemas (e.g., Smith & Larimer, 2013). With varying degrees, however, an idea that has traditionally guided these streams of literature rests upon the premise that a functional democracy is working. Therefore, while fully acknowledging that politics play in policies, this game is played within the frame of a democratic governance.

There is a paradox about decision in Policy Studies. Indeed, “decision” has progressively disappeared as a research question since 1970 and the focus has shifted from decision-making to policy-making studies (Lowi et Olson 1970). This shift followed controversies about the notion of decision-making in the 1960s, which was criticised for being a myth, rationalized a posteriori, which implied neglecting the processes preceding it including the definition of the problem at stake, the formulation of alternative solutions, the plurality of actors involved in multi-level processes, etc. (Schattschneider 1975; Bachrach et Baratz 1963; Cobb et Elder 1971; Rochefort et Cobb 1994). Yet, the actors involved in the policy process consider themselves as “decision-makers and see the “decision” as the essential moment in the policy process. There is a second paradox in policy studies, which involves the neglect of the symbolic dimension of policies. Symbols are everywhere in politics – they are in fact more visible or at least more noticeable now than they had been in previous years : political actors and the media frequently use the adjective “symbolic” to characterize decisions. However, analysts of the policy process has neglected it for a long time. To go beyond this double paradox, we would like to question in this panel why the myth of the “decision” and of the “decision-maker” continues to be so important for the actors involved in the policy process and how this myth is built, framed, and staged by policymakers. Indeed, the notion of a “decisive” moment is constructed through discourse and gestures throughout all the policy process. This symbolic work also concerns the “decision-makers”, which are defined / identified by other actors - those who will develop their strategy in relation to the “decision-makers” they want to influence or fight against.

Recent advances in policy process research have highlighted the empirical imperative and theoretical relevance of actor-centered approaches and the salience of agency in the policy process. Agency in social sciences has often been regarded as a residual variable to make sense of patterns of change and stability that do not fit with expectations coming from more general theories and structural approaches. While leadership studies, organizational theory, public management and sociology have studied agency both theoretically and empirically, public policy scholars tend to focus on how agency unravels in the policy process (Capano and Galanti 2018). Understanding how actors initiate, frame, support, legitimate, and implement change may provide the tools for driven policy actors to engage with the wicked problems of our time, including climate change and deep-seated social inequities, or more ‘mundane’ issues such as community development at the local level. Concomitantly, it is theoretically fruitful to explore actors in the policy process research, especially as they relate to each other conceptually. The scholarship in policy process research has paid increased attention to a distinct kind of political actor, the policy entrepreneur (Petridou and Mintrom 2021; Mintrom 2020). Policy entrepreneurs are energetic actors aimed at affecting policy change and in doing so disrupt the status quo policy landscape. Policy entrepreneurial strategies are multidimensional and they include, inter alia, forming coalitions, developing convincing arguments, leading by example, and not only managing, but also developing networks. These are strategies that may be observed in leaders as well as brokers, who constitute political actors (and concepts) distinct to policy entrepreneurs (Christopoulos and Ingold, 2015). At the same time, policy leaders may show different goals, strategies or resources that impact on the policy process and shape patterns of change and stability, but have never been extensively theorized. All these agents have been discussed in some of the theories of the policy process such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Multiple Stream Approach, and the Punctuated Equilibrium Framework (Weible et al. 2017) Although significant work has been done to conceptually disentangle the policy entrepreneur from the leader and the broker, often times these terms are conflated or used uncritically in the literature resulting in conceptual fuzziness and the perpetuation of a lack of a sharp distinction between policy entrepreneurship, leadership, and brokerage. Therefore, this panel has a twofold objective. First, it aims at examining the theoretical differences and similarities that exist among the concepts of the policy entrepreneur, the broker, and the leader in the broader context of public policy making. It also seeks to highlight the empirical implications these theoretical convergences and divergences have in the way we understand policy change.

The main factors to explain policy change that have been discussed in the last decades have been related to different dimensions and approaches: advocacy coalitions, belief, and ideas; narratives and frames; policy networks, institutions, crises, and external shocks. In particular, the cognitive approach of public policies proposes a model based on a radical paradigm change to explain how a policy changes over time (Hall,1993). However, an analysis based only on the cognitive criteria has demonstrated its limits to explain gradual changes and to deal with more uncertain and messy dynamics. In the other hand, neo-institutionalism approaches have proposed a much more refined model to explain the policy change by transcending the notion of critical junctures and proposing a model based on incremental changes. This approaches also offer ways to overcome dualist views that separate periods of institutional stability and change. Nevertheless, the lack of precision, the static character of the agency model, and the overall low-explanatory power are the critics that have been made to this model (Van der Heijden and Kuhlmann, 2017 in Munoz-del-Campo and Rocha, 2020). In addition, Knill, Schulze and Tosun (2010) state that the studies of change do not represent a coherent body of research and do not enshrine a concrete understanding concept of policy change. However, we stress here that these studies do provide ways to systematize and shape methods of measuring policy change that can be replicated. As such, we propose in this panel to discuss the explanatory power of the theories used so far to explain stasis and policy change.This debate considers two dimensions of study: a first one regarding the meaning of change, which aims to contribute to specifying what change really means today and how it occurs. The second dimension refers to the different stages of change (such as: change in process, in the outputs, and in the outcomes): its real or transitory condition without neglecting the results of change that do not always contribute to strengthening public policies but also (and as we have seen strongly during the last decade) to dismantle it.Finally, this panel aims to contribute to clarify a systematic and empirically concrete understanding of policy change as such and observe the real possibilities of measuring it and establishing causality.

Relations between neighbours dominate the history of civilization, and likely even before the invention of writing and record keeping. The most ancient records describe the struggles and interaction between neighbouring tribes, settlements, villages, clans, houses, dynasties, city-sates, empires and others. In the past two centuries the nation-state proliferated across the globe and replaced other forms of political actors. Today relationships are nearly always between sovereign national governments. A new academic discipline – international relations – has arisen to study and explain the relations between modern nations. After the end of the First World War multilateral relationships have become more important than in the past, and it seemed that bilateral relations would become minor. The creation of the League of Nations and its successor the United Nations and the rivalry of the Cold War decades made multilateral relations more central than ever. Multilateral trade agreements proliferated, often supported by the World Trade Organization, and a plethora of agencies, such as the World Health Organization, came into existence, along with other multilateral fora such as the World Bank. In addition, regional agreements and organizations, most notably the European Union, arose on every continent. It appeared that bilateral relations might gradually but eventually be subsumed by global or at least regional forms of governance. Yet, the fall of the Soviet Union, a less powerful United States on the world stage and increasing nationalism, and the failure of the multilateral arrangement to deliver on promises, heralded an increase or resurgence in the role of bilateral relationships between neighbours. Arguably during the first quarter century of the 21st millennium bilateral dynamics have increased in importance and their impact remains paramount. The most prominent recent example is the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Civil wars, such as in Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia and in other nations have taken on bilateral or multilateral dimensions as neighbouring countries intervene. Notwithstanding the global supply chain, the majority of trade remains between neighbouring nations. The United States exports more to, and imports more from, its two neighbours (Canada and Mexico) than it does with China. Similarly, China trades more with its regional neighbours than it does with the United States. Notwithstanding the rise of multilateral and regional groups (most notably is the European Union), bilateral relations remain at the core of many of the current multilateral forums, whether regional or international organizations. Relationships – whether bilateral, that is between two nations, or multilateral – take any number of forms: from warfare to cooperation on a specific project of development. Almost by definition relationships are asymmetrical in that no two or three or more nations are entirely equal in all regards.

The 21st century is touted as the period where the center of world shifts back to Asia. The popular and scholarly discourse around the ‘rise of Asia’ has been predicated around the “ubiquitous and inevitable” unraveling of the dogmas and traditions in public policy based on Western standards (Bice and Sullivan 2014, 539). The lessons drawn from the management of the COVID-19 is set to turbocharge the deepening of the ‘Asian Century’ and highlight what the world can learn from Asian pandemic response (Abbas and Michael 2020; Patel and Sridhar 2020). These developments prompt new critical thinking about ability of mainstream policy theories to account for heterogeneity in cultural and administrative values, and to explain how the difference in formal and informal institutions influence actions of individual policy actors (Van der Wal 2015, Van der Wal and Yang 2015). It provides a critical proxy for sparking our thinking about how these contemporary challenges may “revolutionize public policy: how it is defined, what it addresses, and how it is implemented and managed” (Bice and Sullivan 2014, 540). No concept is more important to re-appraise than policy transfer. Defined broadly as the adoption of public policies from one jurisdiction to another, policy transfer studies have historically focused on policy transfers occurring in the Northern hemisphere and among Western countries (Jacoby 2000, Marsh and Sharman 2009). While recent studies illustrate the dynamics of policy transfers in the ‘rest’ of the world (e.g. Dussauge Laguna, 2013; Common 2017; Liu and Wang 2018; Romano 2020), how Asian countries export policies out of the region remain largely unexamined. Studies from Latin American scholars have illustrated the role and contribution of regional powers such as Brazil (Porto de Oliveira 2017; de Sa e Silva 2017), or countries such as Colombia (Montero 2017) in the global diffusion of policy models like participatory budgeting and conditional cash transfers. Systematic understanding of the broader diffusion patterns from Asia continues to patchy because studies tend to focus on city-to-city transfer of various economically advanced states like Singapore, Japan and South Korea (Pow 2014, Lee and Hwang 2012). Lesser known are policy transfers from China (Porto de Oliveira and Romano 2022), despite the activism of the country in diffusing its policy ideas, models and approaches, already from the early decades of the PRC. Even less well known are policy transfers from countries that are commonly seen as importers of public policies, such as the Philippines, who recently became active in spreading its migration management model (Saguin and Shivakoti 2022). This proposed panel aims to interrogate policy transfer from Asia to the rest of the world. It is motivated by the need to appraise the applicability of policy transfer theories in understanding how and why Asian countries disseminate policies and models both in the region and in other parts of the world. Ultimately, it asks the question, is there an Asian-style of policy transfer (Saguin and Sha 2021)? How can we modify policy transfer studies to accommodate such style? The panel will take place onsite.

The world today continues to be driven by knowledge and so do policies aimed at solving increasingly complex policy problems. Universities, as key organizations generating new knowledge and training future experts, are no longer expected to only to do that but also be active in disseminating the knowledge generated within them both towards societies and politics to help addressing transversal problems. At the same time, in policymaking expertise and an up-to-date knowledgebase are increasingly used to legitimize policies as well as attempt to make them more effective in solving problems, e.g. by better understanding means-ends connections. This panel focuses on the processes how knowledge is developed, shaped, promoted, contested, accepted or rejected in the context of modern policymaking. In the context of growing internationalisation and regionalisation, as well as countervailing forces such as neo-nationalism, there is more global collaboration and competition in a variety of fields and activities. This opens many questions such as: What are the roles of knowledge actors (who are they? What expertise do they possess?) in these processes and at which governance levels are they concentrating (if any)? What roles do universities as well as other research organizations and the results of their work play for addressing today’s transversal policy problems? How do system structures affect the ways in which the processes unfold (whose voice is heard and how?)? How do we characterise the policymaking dynamics observed (do sectoral boundaries matter, or are policy legacies and path dependencies more explanatory?)? And what are the effects of integrating “knowledge” into policymaking (to what extent has the knowledge turn reconfigured the world of politics?)? The panel aims to shed more light on these and other related questions and participants are invited to explore dynamics, structures, and actors by focusing on a wide set of policy sectors. The sessions and papers presented in this panel can focus on any policymaking environment in which (a) knowledge plays a key role (e.g., in the form of expertise, policy advice), or (b) knowledge defines the sector (e.g., higher education, research, innovation). All proposals should have a clear conceptual framework, describe research design, data and methods, as well as highlight the expected contribution. Comparative designs focusing on different empirical contexts are especially welcome. Accepted papers should reflect on the complex interplay among the different aspects highlighted in the panel (e.g., dynamics between actors, countries, or governance levels).

With an aging population a reality in a wide range of industrialised countries, this panel focuses on policy research surrounding older adults. COVID-19 has put to light several weaknesses with the infrastructure of programs assisting older adults, most notably in long-term care, which have been well documented prior to the pandemic (Werner et al., 2020). Other weaknesses relate to the governance of social services like home care (Longo and Notarnicola, 2018), the impact of different types of providers (Fischer et al., 2022), and the overall conditions and environments of carers (Baines et al., 2022). The capacity of cities to handle an increasing number of responsibilities towards seniors represents another fertile terrain for researchers (Joy, 2020). Beyond health and social services, the current socio-economic climate also raises concerns with the adequacy and sustainability of pension systems and other forms of precarity . While the pandemic is still ongoing, COVID-19 has represented a window of opportunity to improve long-term care and tackle other policies targeting older adults (Béland and Marier, 2020). This brings up other interesting research questions in public policy. For instance, while the comparative welfare state literature has debated the strength and influence of seniors’ organizations to prevent cutbacks to programs benefiting seniors over two decades (Pierson, 1994), research in social gerontology points that the adaption and the introduction of new programs tend to feature budget cuts. Worse, are Baby Boomers now construed as a social problem (Bristow, 2016)? Is this conceptualisation of social problem resulting in the development of new policy instruments accentuating the role of the private sector and informal support provided most notably by family members? Also, how is the primary reliance on medical expertise in aging influencing its development (Estes and Binney, 1989) while contributing to a re-familialization of policy? Have social policy experts been pushed aside in the aftermath of COVID-19? Are new policy design and instruments flourishing in the post-COVID-19 world? The panel prefers papers with a comparative analysis, across policy areas related to (population) aging or across cases, but the organizers welcome all types of contributions.

Although issues of socio-economic development and lack of it in Africa have arguably been overstudied, public policy as a unique multidisciplinary field of inquiry that attempts to investigate and explain the processes, dynamics, and ramifications of what governments choose to do or not to do, has been under-researched on the continent. The neglect of public policy studies on Africa is puzzling for several reasons. First, much of what is pursued in terms of socioeconomic development in the form of ideas, ideologies, principles, and programs in the region often manifest in public policies. Second, albeit characterised by a pronounced structural dualism, modern African states are legacies of western colonialism and continue to derive their logic of relevance from attempts to reflect what happens in the western world in terms of governance. Third, Africa more than any other region in the world, has been the location of copious field work aimed at understanding the choices and impacts of decisions by national and local policy makers, as well as the activities of transnational policy actors and civil society organizations on citizens. These notwithstanding, the conventional theoretical concepts, analytical frameworks, and methodological approaches from policy scholars have hardly been applied to Africa’s governance processes. This obvious gap raises several questions such as: why has the study of public policy been neglected or marginalized in the ever-growing interest in African studies? Is there a utility value for African countries, in the methodological approaches, analytical frameworks, and theoretical concepts derived from the study of public policy in other parts of the world? What will the study of governmental actions and inactions in Africa contribute to our understanding of challenges faced by countries on the continent, as well as the shaping of how public policy itself is studied? In addition, there are substantive questions about the public policy processes in Africa that call for further analysis. For instance, given the multiplicity of policy actors and the obvious asymmetric power relations, as well as differences in resource capabilities, who actually make public policies in Africa? What is the nature of the interplay between the interests of actors and citizens as voters? Do public policies in Africa responds to urgent problems or simply reflect “solutions in research of problems”? In what ways do the policy processes in Africa converge or diverge from the existing notion of the policy cycle? How can we make sense of existing policies in terms of defining problems, framing and designing solutions, and instruments in the policy making process? What lessons can be drawn from studies that compare processes, choices, instruments, and designs of public policy in different African countries? These questions are important because since Horowitz (1989) asked if there is a distinctive third world policy process, very few scholarly works have tackled the drought of policy-oriented research with respect to Africa. The questions open limitless possibilities for scholars interested in the study of public policies in African to include and integrate the various theoretical and analytical perspectives and insights from policy researchers. The panel is designed as a learning opportunity to engage scholars and researchers working on matters of public policy in Africa.

Latin America is a region of the World that shares similar socio-cultural, political, institutional, and administrative characteristics. At a first glance, pressing public problems are similar in many policy domains, as well as public administration and societal capacities to tackle such problems. At the same time, many legal-administrative caveats, country size differences and political idiosyncrasies make comparisons in the region difficult to achieve, resulting in descriptions limited to a “Latin American mosaic”. The objective of this panel is to bring together scholars and practitioners interested in policy issues, policy analysis and policy solutions from/for Latin America. A Lasswellian “policy orientation” is used to convene professors, students, researchers, and practitioners interested in the accumulation of theoretical and applied knowledge on policy topics, taking single Latin American countries as units of analysis or adopting a comparative perspective. The research questions are: - What are and how are used the main policy analysis approaches (descriptive and prescriptive) in Latin American countries?- What original policy analysis approaches (descriptive and prescriptive) are emerging in Latin America?- What methods are applied and policy domains are currently drawing attention in comparative research in the region?- How does the interplay of public policy and public administration in single countries affect the current challenges and perspectives for the development of the region? Regarding scientific relevance, as noted by Geva-May, Hoffmann and Muhleisen (2018), most internationally published scholarships in public policy focus on countries from Europe, Asia, and North America. The same point was advanced by Jreisat (2005, 2011) on public administration research. The authors explicitly indicate a lack of comparative publications from the Global South, in general, and from the Latin American region, specifically. This shortage of publications hinders the diffusion of knowledge and administrative solutions between the Global North and the Global South, and within the Latin American region. Besides stimulating the production and accumulation of theoretical and practical knowledge on the region, this panel envisions the strengthening of a network of scholars and practitioners to publish together on public policy and administration in Latin America.

Studying policy advice has shifted from examining individual professionals to examining policy advisory systems (PAS). PAS, a concept introduced by Seymour-Ure in 1987 and later elaborated and developed by John Halligan and Jonathan Craft, is central to understanding policymaking dynamics in different political communities. PAS have been useful to understand and explain how administrative and policy works are conducted in different advisory venues and how they change over time. While PAS have been defined as an "interlocking network of actors and organizations providing policymakers with recommendations" (Halligan, 1995), the use of multiple sources of policy knowledge and evidence in the policymaking process may challenge the traditional directions and meaning of the concept. As part of almost every decision-making process, governments obtain advice not only from the analysts they employ, but also from a variety of other actors, such as think tanks, lobbyists, partisan political advisors, and expert technical, legal, and scientific advisors (Craft and Howlett 2012). In terms of comparative policy research, it is vital to accurately describe and understand these systems, as well as to consider the contents and methods for categorizing and assessing advisory system actors (MacRae and Whittington 1997). A key element of understanding these systems is the way they are structured and how they impact policy-making and the actors who can exert influence within them. Recent years have seen a revival in the literature on policy advisory systems (such as the second wave), but its empirical focus has largely been on Anglophone countries (Craft and Halligan 2016) or OECD-type developed countries of Europe (Hadorn et al. 2022; Hustedt 2019) and supply-side of policy advice (Sager et al. 2020). This panel seeks to fill this gap by focusing on the global south (Latin America, Asia, Africa) (cf. Howlett, 2019). Global South countries offer a diverse political landscape with decolonized systems, large bureaucracies, and different political regimes for empirical research. Therefore, the panel invites both theoretical and empirical papers on policy advisory systems (internal or external) in different political communities, systems, or regimes (both comparative as well as in-depth studies of specific national or regional systems). A comparative analysis of the Global South and North will also be welcomed. References Craft, J. & Halligan, J. (2016). Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience. Policy Sciences. doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9256-y. Hadorn, S., Sager, F., Mavrot, C. et al. (2022). Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Polit Vierteljahresschr 63, 359–382, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-022-00382-x Halligan, J. (1995). Policy Advice and the Public Sector. In Governance in a Changing Environment, edited by B. Guy Peters, and D. T. Savoie, 138–172. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Howlett, M (2019). Comparing policy advisory systems beyond the OECD: models, dynamics and the second-generation research agenda, Policy Studies, 40:3-4, 241-259, DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2018.1557626. Hustedt, T. (2019). Studying policy advisory systems: beyond the Westminster-bias?. Policy Studies., 40:3-4, 260-269, DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2018.1557627. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79-98. MacRae Jr, D., & Whittington, D. (1997). Expert advice for policy choice: Analysis and discourse. Georgetown University Press. Sager F, Mavrot C, Hinterleitner M, Kaufmann D, Grosjean M & Stocker TF (2020) Utilization-focused scientific policy advice: a six-point checklist, Climate Policy, 20:10, 1336-1343, DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2020.1757399

Policy formulation is not a reflection of any one actor, but rather an often-complicated interaction of history, ideology, politics, socio-economic conditions, and external shocks which conspire to shape how nations develop. In the case of Africa and the Caribbean, which were subject to hundreds of years of colonial rule, wealth extraction and exploitation, public policy formulation and development often takes a different, slower path. These relatively young democracies with their underdeveloped and under-resourced political institutions are playing catch up with rest of the world. Literacy and education attainment levels remain abysmal, health and economic outcomes are comparatively lower, and chronic food and energy insecurity persist. The history of colonialism is well documented in academic literature, but the shadow cast on public policy formulation and implementation remains a work in progress. In 1972, Walter Rodney expertly interrogated how Europe underdeveloped Africa. Later, in 2021 Hilary Beckles chronicled how the same continent underdeveloped the Caribbean. This panel aims to build on this conversation, specifically from the perspective of public policy. How has the colonial experience and its aftermath shaped or hindered the formulation and implementation of sound public policy? Education, economic, financial development, trade, health and social security, and climate change are just some of the areas of public policy which will be examined for colonial links and its vestiges. Specifically, the panel will address the following areas of enquiry: 1. Interrogate how colonialism has impacted and influenced public policy formulation and implementation in Africa and the Caribbean. 2. Identify the different areas of public policy most affected by the colonial experience. For example, education, health, etc. 3. Compare how post-colonial public policy formulation and implementation have differed between former colonies and identify the main factors which contributed to disparities. 4. Explore how public policy formulation and implementation has differed in former colonies compared to former colonial powers. 5. Identify how implemented public policy in the Caribbean and Africa disrupt the legacies of colonialism. We propose for this panel to be onsite and in person. Both panel chairs will be in physical attendance at ICPP6.

The urban scale is increasingly a focal point of policy intervention to respond to the needs of precarious migrants and refugees. In one sense, this is the case as the needs of precarious migrants (i.e., housing, food security, employment, community safety, etc.) are most directly addressed by municipal-level services (Homberger et al., 2022). In addition, cities are acting as safe havens for migrants and refugees in situations where the national context is xenophobic and restrictive towards migration (Kreichauf & Mayer, 2021). Municipal affirmations of the rights of migrants and refugees are seen in the sanctuary city policies across North America (Faret & Sanders, 2021), the urban solidarity initiatives in Europe (Özdemir, 2022), and similar programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Godoy & Bauder, 2021; Kassa, 2019; Missbach et al., 2018). Despite the proliferation of policies and practices of solidarity to support migrants and refugees at the urban scale, various scholars have identified that policy interventions on this issue are disconnected, highly context specific and would benefit from more comparative policy analysis across regional contexts (Bauder, 2022). Further, literature in migration governance and urban governance (Landau & Kihato, 2020; Triandafyllidou, 2022) has emphasized the importance of de-centring these fields through more comparative research, especially from outside of Global North. The goal of this panel is to bring together scholars studying municipal policy concerning precarious migrants and refugees from diverse regions in order to foster a dialogue across these contexts to address the policy challenges and potential solutions for best practices at the municipal level. The panel aims to address the following questions: What are the various municipal policies to support the precarious migrants and refugees in different local contexts? How are various actors (e.g., municipal policy actors, non-governmental organizations, migrant communities, activist and solidarity movements, and transnational advocacy networks) involved in the shaping of policies at the municipal level? How can the urban and local policies in different regions inform each other in terms of theorizing urban sanctuary and solidarity and local policy development? References Bauder, H. (2022). From Sovereignty to Solidarity: Rethinking Human Migration (1st ed.). Routledge. Faret, L., & Sanders, H. (Eds.). (2021). Migrant Protection and the City in the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan. Godoy, M., & Bauder, H. (2021). Ciudades Santuario Y Solidarias En América Latina: Una Revisión De Literatura. Migracion y Desarrollo, 19(36), 89–113. Homberger, A., Kirchhoff, M., Mallet, M.-L., Atac, llker, Gunter, S., & Spencer, S. (2022). Local Responses to Migrants with Precarious Status Frames, Strategies and Evolving Practices in Europe (Working Paper no. 157). Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS). Kassa, D. G. (2019). Refugee Spaces and Urban Citizenship in Nairobi: Africa’s Sanctuary City (Vol. 32). Lexington Books. Kreichauf, R., & Mayer, M. (2021). Negotiating Urban Solidarities: Multiple Agencies and Contested Meanings in the Making of Solidarity Cities. Urban Geography, 42(7), 979–1002. Landau, L. B., & Kihato, C. W. (2020). The Informalisation of Migration Governance Across Africa’s Urban Archipelagos. In Routledge Handbook of Migration and Development (1st ed., pp. 157–167). Routledge. Missbach, A., Adiputera, Y., & Prabandari, A. (2018). Is Makassar a ‘Sanctuary City’? Migration Governance in Indonesia After the ‘Local Turn.’ Advances in Southeast Asian Studies, 11(2), Article 2. Özdemir, G. Ş. (2022). Urban solidarity typology: A comparison of European cities since the crisis of refuge in 2015. Cities, 103976. Triandafyllidou, A. (2022). Decentering the Study of Migration Governance: A Radical View. Geopolitics, 27(3), 811–825.

Over the past decades, it has become clear that there is a substantial and increasing diversity in family forms within most countries. The dominance of life-long marriage has made way for delays in union formation and a rise in cohabitation, while societal and legal evolutions have led to an increase in separations and divorces, often followed up by re-partnering and new family formation. In this respect, we see a growing number of children splitting time between parental homes and sharing the household with new parental figures and siblings. As such, many adults and children will experience being part of various family forms over their life course. It is therefore interesting to note that social policies intended to assist families were often initiated during a period in which stable nuclear families with a breadwinning husband and caregiving wife were seen as the norm. A major question that arises is therefore whether and to what extent these policies have been adapted to fit contemporary divergent family configurations, as well as to what extent existing family policies are (still) adequately responsive to specific countries’ family trajectories. There is extant research illustrating patterns of fertility, partnership dissolution, and living arrangements across various countries on the one hand, and studies describing family policies and evaluating their general effectiveness on the other. However, far less is known about how these policies function for diverse family forms. Important questions that remain are, for example: How do income support programs work when children split time across parental households? Who is obligated to provide for children when a parent has had children with multiple partners? If a non-biological parent acts as a parent, should they be able to take parental leave? Do the resources and needs of informal cohabitors or co-residing kin factor into benefits? The overarching research questions of this onsite panel concern whether and to what extent countries (have) adapt(ed) their family policies in light of contemporary family patterns and how these policies are working for diverse family forms. Paper proposals could explore, among others: (a) the extent to which a country’s adaptation or implementation of policy reflecting diverse families is related to the degree of family change within that country, the level of gender equality, and ideologies about family; (b) the extent to which policies that focus on individuals rather than families as the unit of analysis are more effective at supporting a broad array of family forms; (c) whether policies are less effective when they do not match a country’s actual family patterns (e.g., countries whose policies do not provide cohabiting couples with equal rights to married couples may experience more difficulties if they have high rates of cohabitation). As the evolution in family diversity and policy implementations vary across countries, both national and comparative research is vital to increase our understanding of the needs of diverse families, and to advance family policy in a meaningful and effective manner.

In the past two decades, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) have risen by leaps and bounds across the global south. Active Voluntary Organizations for Professional Evaluation (VOPEs), evaluation specialists, and global, regional, and national evaluation networks have exploded. Culturally relevant evaluation criteria have been established, and postgraduate education and training in evaluation have been bolstered across the global south. Efforts to build country-owned national monitoring and evaluation systems and parliamentarian fora are gaining traction as demand from governments and local to regional organizations increases (Ofir, 2021). Despite these impactful efforts, considerable obstacles persist, and research is needed to understand better the mechanisms of institutionalization of M&E in the global south. This panel will examine the progress of the institutionalization of M&E in the global south from various perspectives. It will describe prior developments and the state of M&E, focusing on the political, social, and professional systems (Stockmann, 2016; Meyer et al., 2020). The overall goal is to provide a truly global south portrait of evaluation and provide cross-country learning to understand better the institutionalization of M&E in different countries across the global south. The purpose of the panel is to describe M&E systems and to explain these developments regarding possible driving forces and consequences. The panel attempts to provide the most up-to-date theorizing about how to practice evaluation and to present evaluation's extensive knowledge base within a global south context. References: Ofir, Z. (2021). Evaluation in Transition: The Promise and Challenge of South-South Development Cooperation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. Meyer, Wolfgang/Stockmann, Reinhard/Taube, Lena (2020): The Institutionalisation of Evaluation: Theoretical Background, Analytical Concept and Methods. In: Stockmann, Reinhard/Meyer, Wolfgang/Taube, Lena (Hg.) (2020): The Institutionalization of Evaluation in Europe. London: Palgrave/Macmillan, S. 3-34. Stockmann, R. / Meyer, W. [Ed.] (2016): The Future of Evaluation. Global Trends, New Challenges, Shared Perspectives. Basingstoke Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Transitions to a more sustainable future require not only technological diffusion and behavioral change but also policy innovation (UNRISD, 2016). Policy innovation has been defined as “the process and/or product of seeking to develop new and/or widely adopted, and/or impactful policies, when existing ones are perceived to be under-performing” (Jordan & Huitema, 2014a). The concept has been associated with three different perspectives in public policy research: policy invention, policy diffusion, and policy success (Jordan & Huitema, 2014b). However, research on policy innovation is beset with numerous issues. First, existing scholarship does not offer a cogent, comprehensive understanding of the notion of policy innovation (Howlett, 2014). Second, the perspectives on policy innovation are often studied in isolation, within limited understanding of whether and how policy invention, policy diffusion, and policy success influence one another (Goyal, 2019). Third, existing scholarship does not systematically consider characteristics associated with complexity, such as polycentricity, policy spill-over, nexus policymaking, technological disruption, trans-nationalization, uncertainty, and wickedness while studying policy innovation (Goyal et al., 2022). As a result, our understanding of policy innovation remains piecemeal. The aim of this panel is to advance scholarship in order to create academic, yet policy-relevant knowledge on understanding, explaining, and promoting policy innovation, especially in complex settings. We welcome diverse views on policy innovation from different theoretical, methodological, and empirical perspectives. Research questions that fall within the scope of this panel include – but are not limited to – the following. 1. What are the different ways in which a public policy can be innovative? 2. Why are some polities more innovative in policy-making, policy designing, or policy implementation? 3. How does complexity influence policy innovation? 4. How do policy invention, policy diffusion, and policy success influence one another? This panel can contribute to the body of literature on public policy by developing an integrated, systematic understanding of policy innovation, advance scholarship on policy process theories by developing, extending, and/or refining them in the context of sociotechnical systems, and further the synthesis of policy studies with behavioral studies, global studies, and innovation studies.

Approximately 25 years ago when environmental policies became more visible in the developed world a concept entitled “focusing events” began to be used. Thomas Birkland defined them as large scale, sudden events that grab the attention of the public. By 2021, Birkland had received funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation to continue the earlier work by applying those earlier concerns attached to environmental issues to the COVID-19 pandemic. While Birkland and his co-authors had some misgivings about the fit between the environmental policy experience and COVID -19, they were able to use both topics to illustrate important aspects of the policy development process. There seemed to be a link between the literature dealing with the stages of the policy process and this topic. Several scholars were interested in the initial stage that focused on framing the policy problem and providing a point of departure for decisionmaking, implementation and evaluation. Most examples of the early stages of this version of the policy process are triggered by some external action that is known and predictable (for example, the schedule of election timing). In this case, however, the process of developing policies and procedures to deal with the various shifts and needs of victims of COVID-19 has been incredibly complex. As such, it does not always fit into the rational decisionmaking processes that many people in the policy field have defined and often assumed. As a result, it is difficult to find a situation comparable to these developments. The topic itself has been a short hand term for contemporary policies and changes that flow from a seemingly uncontrollable disease. It constantly changes. It involves a range of players, issues and conflicts that seem to be unlike anything else experienced earlier. As such, it has moved beyond formal and traditional policy players but continues to involve those players in the story. In that sense, the work seemed to return to Birkland’s definition of “focusing events.” By the end of 2021 an examination of the visible publications in the public policy field indicated that issues that emerged from the early stages of dealing with COVID-19 were already occupying interest in the policy field. For the most part it was found attached to a range of policy topics, methodologies, and approaches. Some of these topics were familiar while others seemed to be new. The globalization of the topic sparked increased interest in comparative analysis approaches that seemed to emphasize similarities rather than differences between program approaches. Importantly, interest in this topic was exhibited across the globe and did not appear to be delivered along with a narrow political or technical agenda. These developments seemed to bring policy researchers back to classic public policy literatures such as those dealing with implementation, federalism, and budgeting to provide relevant perspectives. Given the limits of existing research resources it is not surprising that policy researchers are likely to find ways to include COVID-19 issues in their existing research designs. There were several aspects of these existing designs that seem to have been relied upon or, in some cases, ignored. These included biases that might have ignored the meaning and limitations of available data. As a result, analysts were likely to emphasize similarities rather than differences between activities in different settings. This experience provides a contrast between two very different sets of players and agendas charged with policy framing. It is not clear whether these tendencies are likely to emerge from the characteristics of different settings or whether they emerge from increasingly complex policy issues. The Classic Policy Setting Centralization Monolithic authority Stability Efficiency goals Clearly defined Predictability Planned Concept of life cycle One size fits all Geographically limited Data stable, clearly defined Concept of life cycle Clarity about client Authority defined Characteristics of the COVID-19 experience Emergent resources Decentralization Federalism Constant change Conflict expected Conflict attached to diversity Shifting theories Emergent, changing players Equity goals (in background) Effectiveness goals Diversity anticipated Open ended Players move in and out It all depends Authority diffused Differences expected

In recent years, a wave of illiberal populist leaders have taken office in several countries (i.e., the US, Brazil, Hungary, India, Poland, Turkey, the Philippines, and the UK) and, despite coming to power through the ballot vote, they have contributed to initiating or to further deepening processes of democratic backsliding. Unlike regime change, coups d’état, and total democratic breakdown, backsliding involves subtle, gradual, and often silent processes that corrode the foundations of democratic institutions. Waldner and Lust (2018) define democratic backsliding as “a deterioration of qualities associated with democratic governance within any regime” (p. 95). Haggard and Kaufman (2021) present a more detailed and operational definition, referring to “processes through which elected rulers weaken checks on executive power, curtail political and civil liberties, and undermine the integrity of the electoral system”. For countries that did not yet have a consolidated democracy, backsliding meant many steps backward in a journey that had taken decades to move forward and away from authoritarian pasts. Although there has been burgeoning literature on the politics of democratic backsliding, the field of public policy has only recently begun to tackle the new policy dynamics emerging in contexts of democratic decline. The edited volume by Bauer et al. (2021) was the first to address questions about the impact of illiberal populist leaders on public administration and state bureaucracies. Bauer and Knill (2014) focused on developing analytical tools to identify and explain policy change processes that entail a 'reduction,' 'decrease,' or 'diminution' of existing policy arrangements, calling it 'policy dismantling.' However, such a framework was developed for contexts of stable democracies and well-institutionalized policies. Following their seminal work, this panel will seek to convene authors dedicated to better understanding the new dynamics affecting the policy process and why, when, and how policies change in contexts of democratic backsliding. The panel will entertain the following research questions: - What have been the nature and mechanics of policy change in contexts of democratic backsliding? - Do illiberal populist administrations alter the policy process? How? - How do backsliders or illiberal populists seek policy change? - In the existing public policy literature, what concepts and frameworks help us understand the policy process in democratic backsliding? - Do illiberal populists work with or against state bureaucracies? How? - Are there common patterns that can be identified across different countries? - What new concepts and frameworks are needed to capture policy change in those contexts? It is expected that the ensemble of papers will allow for discussions around a new body of literature that can provide a conceptual and analytical framework for those addressing policy change in the context of democratic backsliding and illiberal populism. Bibliography Bauer, M. W. & Christoph Knill (2014) A Conceptual Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Policy Change: Measurement, Explanation and Strategies of Policy Dismantling, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16:1, 28-44, –OI: 10.1080/13876988.2014.885186. Bauer, M. W., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., Yesilkagit, K., & Becker, S. (Eds.). (2021). Democratic Backsliding and Public Administration: How Populists in Government Transform State Bureaucracies (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009023504 Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. (2021). Backsliding: Democratic regress in the contemporary world. Cambridge University Press. Waldner, D., & Lust, E. (2018). Unwelcome Change: Coming to Terms with Democratic Backsliding. Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050517-114628

This panel focuses on the precarity of democratic and human rights policy-making and policy substance in a Europe which experiences populist onslaughts on citizens’ rights and systems of governing and foreign attempts at influencing elections and citizens’ trust in governments. These developments have made some talk of a return to the interwar period. There are however no grounds to think that history will repeat itself but what is clear is that some of the policy instruments and institutional mechanisms that were put in place to prevent new forms of authoritarianism are under serious attack. In his perceptive book Contesting Democracy (2011: 5) Jan-Werner Müller argues that post-war Europe was marked by democracy constrained: “Europeans created something new, a democracy that was highly constrained (mostly by unelected institutions, such as constitutional courts). The constitutionalist ethos that came with such democracies was positively hostile to ideals of unlimited popular sovereignty…” Human rights and human rights policies were central elements in ensuring and justifying such constraints. Such legal-constitutional constraints – and the institutions and policies sustaining them - have been increasingly targeted by the rising populist tide, from the UK through Brexit in the West to Victor Orban’s ‘illiberal democracy’ in the East. Populists across Europe consider such constitutional constraints and many of the rights and policy instruments - especially those associated with supranational EU and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) laws and rules - as elite onslaughts on popular sovereignty. There is no doubt that supranational systems of rights granting and governing bring up issues of democratic authorization and accountability. At the same time, populist onslaughts on such systems in the name of popular sovereignty is often nothing more than authoritarianism in disguise. In other words, taking back control by no longer subjecting one’s country to supranational systems of rights does not necessarily come with any assurance of domestic national rights protection. The removal of external constraints may offer national leaders great leverage to pursue their chosen policies. This panel zooms in on the policy dimension of legal-democratic precarity and backsliding. It takes as its point of departure that democracies need to formulate and implement policies which will ensure popular participation, governing accountability, and protection of the rights of all those people(s) living within the territory. It follows that democracies rely on a whole range of policy instruments tailored to ensuring equal and fair participation; policies to ensure that governments are properly held accountable to their citizens; and policies to ensure that the rights of citizens (and foreigners) are adequately protected. Backsliding and undermining of the rule of law can thus be manifested in terms of the nature and realm of policy-making and implementation. Is there a specific bundle of policy instruments associated with legal backsliding and anti-democratic (authoritarian) onslaughts? Or do would-be autocrats tweak policies and policy-instruments so as to achieve desirable political results or enhance political influence. One possible implication is the need to consider policies in conjunction, as bundled in order to discern clear patterns of democratic and legal backsliding. Backsliding may occur without actually withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights or other European institutions or arrangements that promote the protection of rights. It may simply be effected by policies framed in terms of asserting domestic sovereignty and promoting certain domestic institutions while weakening others that would otherwise promote oversight and accountability of executive policy-making. In what sense do we find: Policies to structure popular participation and civil society actors - Restrict or skew participation in a politically or ideologically desired direction - Institute forms of selective participation: include some persons or groups and systematically exclude others Policies to restrict rights and access - Policies aimed at or designed to undermine equality (gender, race, ethnicity, language, religion) - Policies aimed at restricting migration or systematically select between desirable and undesirable migrants - Policies aimed at undermining the rights of asylum seekers - Policies aimed at restricting welfare and workers’ entitlements Policies to control, direct and shape political discourse - Media control Policies to wield political control of courts and legal bodies - Policies to undermine legal integrity and oversight (mandatory retirement policies in Poland); policies to intimidate the judiciary The analysis of the important policy dimension of legal and democratic backsliding will shed light on the broader issue facing Europe of how to reconcile democracy as majoritarian rule with (minoritarian) constitutional rights-based and other controls - under conditions of complex interdependence and a global context less attentive to legal norms and rules. We can expect policies and policy instruments to play a role in what appears to be a reconfigured relationship between politics and law as countries embark on weakening the rule of law and downscaling constitutional protections. This challenge is readily apparent in the multilevel constellation that makes up the European Union; it is however also an issue that post-Brexit United Kingdom has to grapple with. There are pleas there for exiting the European Convention of Human Rights and for initiating other measures that may weaken rights protection for UK citizens and migrants.

Providing redress for maladministration is a key requirement of any legitimate system of public service delivery. The panel explores different ways of holding public authorities and agents of public service delivery accountable. Public sector control and accountable is a salient and recurrent issue in the analysis of public policy and its implementation and evaluation in particular. Against this background, the panel organizers seek to combine institutional political science perspectives (focusing on relations between the branches of government as well as on the dynamics of parliamentary behavior) with public administration research (with an eye on public service delivery and organizational behavior in the public sector). While some notions of accountability refer to formal and highly institutionalized forms of control (such as disciplinary powers or court proceedings), others highlight the informal nature of “accountability as a virtue” and rely on ethical standards and personal convictions as expressed in social control and peer group pressure, but also in acts of “whistle blowing”. On another spectrum of different elements of accountability and control, the variety ranges from instruments and mechanisms internal to the organization (such as oversight by supervisors, political executives and investigations by internal affair units), to arrangements that primarily lie outside of the organization (such as parliamentary scrutiny, ombudspersons, citizen review boards, audit systems, regulatory agencies and even “counter-bureaucracies”, but also investigative journalism, “citizen watch” initiatives and social media activism). The panel pursues research questions that revolve around contextual differences of control and accountability systems. We hypothesize that institutional arrangements for holding public sector agents accountable will differ across time horizons and national boundaries depending, for example, on prevailing notions of the state, political system characteristics (presidential vs. parliamentary systems of government), types of executive government, political competition and party systems, modes of interest representation, but also on different types of public services rendered (ranging from street-level bureaucracies to regulatory tasks of government agencies to public policy making functions of ministerial governments) and varieties of public policy fields (ranging from extended welfare services to planning functions and potentially repressive agencies of the state, involving the use of physical force). In doing so, the panel investigates the variety of ways of holding the executive apparatus of the state accountable, particularly in light of their comparative advantages and disadvantages as well as their embeddedness in different politico-administrative systems. The panel will be organized onsite with an option to present papers online as well as in-person. This hybrid mode of the conference will allow for physical as well as virtual participation.

This panel aims to understand the effects of social accountability initiatives (SAIs) in governance in different political regimes. Social accountability refers to initiatives created by citizens to monitor public servants and control political power (Grandvoinnet et al., 2015; Igalla et al., 2019; Malena et al., 2004; Smulovitz & Peruzzotti, 2000). They aim to expose and report cases of governmental wrongdoing and activate horizontal agencies through citizen mobilization (Peruzzotti & Smulovitz, 2006). SAIs could be demanded by citizens or offered by governments. On the demand side, the last years have been characterized by increased citizen initiatives to improve governance, such as citizen observatories and overseeing institutions. On the supply side, governments are more open to creating spaces for fostering citizen participation, like referendums and participatory budgets. In strong democratic contexts, these initiatives have been widely implemented, and research has shown none or little effect in strengthening governance (Boräng & Grimes, 2021; Larsson & Grimes, 2022). In weak democratic contexts, however, the evidence is less convincing. First, there is an explosion of initiatives from the supply side that lack effectiveness. Second, there are few initiatives from the demand side, and research shows mixed results (Grandvoinnet et al., 2015; Malena et al., 2004). In this context, understanding the effect of different types of SAIs in different political regimens is still an unexplored field. The panel seeks to answer questions like What is the influence of social accountability on governance in different contexts and regimes? What is the extent of the effectiveness of social accountability? And how can we explain the paradox between fostering participation policies and opening more channels of social accountability and its limited effects on governance? We start from the hypothesis that a government-driven design of social accountability initiatives may not contain the necessary mechanisms to make an effective counterweight to political power. Participation may also be disincentive since citizens have limited resources to implement social accountability. It is also worth considering the possibility that social accountability may have different effects depending on the regime or region in which it is implemented.

In federal states, authority over and responsibility for public policies is divided between two orders of government (the federal government and the constituent units). The assignment of responsibilities to different levels of government requires vertical and even horizontal coordination because decisions taken by one level can generate consequences over citizens from another one. (Schnabel, 2020). Given the overlapping action of the central and subnational spheres in most policy areas, interactions among the different governments are necessary for policy coordination (Hueglin & Fenna, 2015) to coordinate policy. Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) are crucial for the ability of federal systems to deliver public services. The operation of IGR is shaped by politics, the character of public policies, as well as fiscal and managerial issues regarding public service provision. Since these bonds involve spheres of authority and power regarding territorial politics, the kind of resulting arrangement can induce more negotiation, bargain, and cooperation to seek mutual benefits or, on the contrary, create conflicts between the different governmnts, for instance over resources and jurisdiction (Agranoff, 2001). The main challenge of federal states is to develop well-functioning IGR and formalize interactions between governments. Against this backdrop, most federations have established intergovernmental councils to put IGR on a more reliable footing. Welfare State expansion after World War II (Obinger, Leibfried, & Castles, 2005) further increased the need for coordination of policymaking in federal systems to reconcile the coexistence between autonomy and interdependence that shapes federations and their decision-making process. To promote equity while also responding to regional differences in need, preferences, and demand, federations combined centralized processes (such as financing, regulation, and induction) with decentralized and autonomous implementation of public policies. This panel intends to explore experiences of federalism and IGR arrangements in public welfare policies. It explores how federations organize the relationship between different levels of government. The main objective is to discuss and compare What mechanisms help federations coordinate the delivery of public welfare policy? How should they be designed? What challenges arise?”. More specifically, it examines whether IGR instruments are a useful to tool to balance national equity and regional differences by facilitating cooperation between different spheres of government in the implementation of public welfare policies. References Agranoff, R. (2001). Managing within the matrix: Do collaborative intergovernmental relations exist? Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 31(2), 31–56. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a004895 Hueglin, T. O., & Fenna, A. (2015). Comparative federalism: A systematic inquiry. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Obinger, H., Leibfried, S., & Castles, F. G. (2005). Federalism and the welfare state: New world and European experiences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schnabel, J. (2020). Managing interdependencies in federal systems: Intergovernmental councils and the making of public policy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Given the complexity of our problems today, policy problems require multi-sector solutions, and there is a growing need for solutions to be generated from the community. In this panel, we would like to explore the key challenges related to this complexity around priority setting and our understanding of which actions will have the most significant positive impact and create the conditions for effective integration of efforts. We would also like to explore questions such as: -With the nature of the complexity of our problems, how does the community mobilize around collaborative, cooperative, practical solutions around priority setting and establishing reciprocal relationships between citizens and government? -How can we describe the conditions and actions, and behaviours of communities responding to complex problems, and what does it tell us about what is required from the government? -Finally, how can activating communities, community leaders, and advocates form some part of the solution in priority setting and understanding practical solutions that can be undertaken on the ground?

Context: Bureaucrats translating research evidence to health policies (including physical activity) for consideration by elected leaders and the allied health related policy preferences of politicians require further investigation (Racine et al., 2020) General Objective: Contextualizing research translation to policy contingent upon political and bureaucratic environments. Scientific relevance: Translation of evidence into policy action across many allied health fields makes for slow progress. Physical activity provides an excellent example. Recent debate in the Lancet about ‘what gets measured doesn’t always get done’ (Kent et al., 2022) provides an opportunity for discussion about the application of political science to allied health and physical activity policy development. Kent et al., (2022) propose that health research needs to interrogate beyond measurement alone, when investigating the changes required to promote healthier cities. Issues including changes to the systems influencing outcomes, the prioritisation of epidemiological data alone rather than deeper understandings of the political, economic and regulatory barriers to change and a focus on quantitative research methods helps get research published but does not necessarily get things done. Oliver and Cairney (2019) synthesised research evidence regarding how academics can influence policymaking. The authors condensed the advice into eight ‘common sense’ recommendations but caution regarding different beliefs about the nature of the problem to be solved and the importance of evidence based critical analysis and insights to inform application of the recommendations. Idea: Oliver and Cairney’s (2019) ‘Dos and Don’ts of influencing policy’ recommendations provide a list of recommendations to help academics inform evidence-based policy making beyond the mere production of quantitative data. Can Oliver and Cairney’s (2019) compilation form the basis of recommended policy entrepreneur practices dependent upon the favourability/unfavourability of bureaucratic vs political environments of a particular allied health policy problem

Public bureaucracies are important actors in the policy process, and scholars of public policy need to understand better their role in making and delivering public policy. The concept of bureaucratic autonomy is useful in that understanding, and has been widely used in the literature on public policy and public administration (see Peters, 2022), but yet remains less specified than would be desirable. The term is taken to mean, in a rather common-sense yet useful manner, that public sector organizations are relatively unconstrained, and are capable of making their own decisions. To be more useful, however, a number of aspects of bureaucratic autonomy need to be specified: What level are we talking about?–the institution as a whole, organizations, or individuals Autonomy from what and whom?–politicians, private sector actors, superiors within the organization, what else Decisions about what?–policy, budgets, personnel. How formal does autonomy need to be? –can informal autonomy be as effective How much bureaucratic autonomy?–the importance of accountability The above list of dimensions might be extended, but the basic point should be clear. To use this concept successfully will require additional specification and the creation of “autonomy with adjectives” (see Collier and Levitsky, 1997) to be able to differentiate types of autonomy and understand their potential for explaining the behavior of individuals and organizations, and their impacts on policy choices. We believe that when fully specified the concept of bureaucratic autonomy can provide insights for comparative policy studies, both across countries and across policy areas. The panel organizers will develop a framework paper for this panel containing a typology of bureaucratic autonomy based on the interaction of sources of control. We will circulate this paper to panel participants well in advance of the panel. We would welcome papers that elaborate (and criticize) this framework. We would especially welcome papers that will use the framework to evaluate the degree of bureaucratic autonomy in different settings Collier, D. And S. Levitsky (1997) Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparativ Research, World Poltiics 49, 430-51. Peters, B. G. (2022) Understanding Bureaucratic Autonomy: Existing Approaches and a Way Forward, Paper presented at Southern Political Science Association Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX

Governing societal activities, institutions and work has always been ubiquitous but never self-explanatory. With respect to addressing global problems and pursuing important societal aims, such as combating climate change, easing up urban congestion, advancing welfare or providing education, it is difficult to disentangle public policies and agencies from private efforts, economic institutions and civic activities (Johanson and Vakkuri 2017; Pekkola, Pinheiro et al. 2022). Recent developments in commissioning public services, welfare mixes, corporate social responsibility and global rise in social enterprises signify the fluidity of institutional boundaries. Societies have learnt that both evolutionary adaptation and institutional design occur at multiple levels of society, which produces impacts undetected by our current policy instruments. This panel “Public policies for hybrid governance”, investigates the dynamic and complex relationship, rationalities (implicit and/or explicit) and tensions and dilemmas among public, private and civic domains contributing to policy outcomes. A chief aim of this panel is to extend our understanding on governance by relating it with hybridity both as a form of governance (“hybrid governance”) and as an object of governance (“governance of hybridity”) and by connecting such an inquiry with policymaking of different contexts. Governments have fundamental problems with understanding why, how and with what impacts this occurs. The problem is even more pronounced with the interplay between domains that we conceptualize as hybridity. By hybridity we refer to the interaction among public, private and civil society via distinct modes of ownership, parallel but often competing institutional logics, diverse funding bases and various forms of social and institutional control (Skelcher and Smith 2015; Grossi et al. 2017). We propose three main questions for the panel: 1) How are public policies influenced by hybridity and hybrid forms of governance? 2) To what extent and via what mechanisms do governments influence (foster or hamper) hybridity? 3) How does hybridity shape the agenda-setting, implementation and evaluation of public policies? An interesting aspect is the extent to which hybridity shapes the design of governmental structures and arrangements. The policies of the nation states are often labeled as “public” primarily due to the dominant role of governments in instigating political agendas and social change in their territories. Therefore, it is also commonplace to understand the multiplicity of policy rationalities only via “public sector” outcomes. However, policies often include several aspects of public-private linkages and collaboration between governments and business corporations, as well as public-private-civil societal relationships (Erkkilä 2012). Our panel aims to bridge the gap between public policy and public administration scholars in discussing hybridity. It has been assumed that mixing “public” and “private” creates contaminated institutions, and dysfunctional modes of organizations (Jacobs 1992; Ménard 2004). The side effects of specialization of scientific disciplines have contributed to the assumption of monstrous hybridity, which is assumed to compromise the neutrality of government (Vakkuri and Johanson, 2020). Accordingly, the governance solutions of societies have been based on a narrow understanding of institutional mixtures. Hybridity over time may have evolved both “by design” and “by default” (Johanson and Vakkuri 2017).

This panel will take stock and look to the future of administrative processes in the digital era. The digital revolution, with the shift from mechanical and analog technology to digital electronics, has been underway for more than half a century. Governments in all regions of the world are undergoing digital transformations: organizations are increasingly conducting operations digitally or even automatically while connecting digitally among each other and with citizens. In this panel, we build on prior work on the intersection of agency, structure, and technology (Orlikowski 1992; Giddens 1994) as well as more recent work on the shifting role of bureaucrats in an increasingly digitized and automated environment (Buffat 2015; Giest and Klievink 2022; Longo 2022). In this context, the panel will address larger themes in current e-governance and digital policy and public administration literature, which include: *How digitization is affecting governments, and public administration, in different regions of the world especially in light of how the COVID pandemic has influenced developments; *The role of digitization in specific government processes including government procurement, financial and human resources management, administration of justice and the courts, etc.; *Digitization in select public policy fields such as healthcare, communications, transportation, the environment, and consumer and financial regulation; *Digitization in the policy process especially considering issues such as AI, ethics, privacy, big data, and regulator technology; and finally *The impact of digitization on individuals and groups within – and outside – government, paying special attention to the fact that digitization not only creates information asymmetry among government and citizens, but also disadvantages certain groups of citizens. This also includes an examination of the impact of digitization on citizens including positive and exclusionary effects accounting for gender, age discrimination, marginalized and racialized communities, as well as rural communities. By combining these themes, we aim to fill a gap in the current research landscape by integrating research on bureaucratic structures and digital or automated decision-making processes from the perspective of both public servants and citizens. More broadly, this panel will provide a comprehensive and rich overview of the effects and prospects of public administration in the digital era. References: Buffat, A. 2015. Street-Level Bureaucracy and E-Government. Public Management Review 17(1), 149-161. Giddens, A. 1994. The Constitutions of Society. Oxford: Polity Press. Giest, Sarah and Bram Klievink. 2022. More than a digital system: How AI is changing the role of bureaucrats in different organizational contexts. Public Management Review, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2022.2095001. Longo, J. 2022. When Artificial Intelligence Meets Real Public Administration. Canadian Public Administration, 65(2), 389-393. DOI: 10.1111/capa.12465 Orlikowski, W. 1992. The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3(3), 398–427.

Much of the discussions, literature, and studies on public policymaking focus on the role of legislative bodies and policy implementation in the executive branch of the government. More often than not, the role of public agencies or the bureaucracy in public policymaking is glossed over. Yet, the scant literature about them points out their importance in the formulation of public policies. As policy implementors, and the ones involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the relevant programs or projects, the bureaucracy is in the position to speak clearly about the need to correct the implementation of the existing public policies, amend/modify or altogether, terminate them. A handful of studies have already raised issues about agencification (Bach, Niklasson and Painter, 2012), policy autonomy or independence from politicians (Berry and Gersen, 2017; Selin, 2015; Rose-Ackerman and Perroud, 2013; Bach, Niklasson and Painter, 2012), judicial/statutory interpretation or adjudication (Phillips, 2021; Stack, 2009; De Mesquita and Stephenson, 2007; Koch, 2005; Magillt, 2004), delegation to the bureaucracy of the regulatory policymaking function of the legislature (Wiseman, 2009; De Mesquita and Stephenson, 2007), public participation or mass public engagement (Judge-Lord, 2021; Mendelson, 2007), legislative oversight (Clinton et al., 2014; Feinstein, 2017), executive turnover’s influence on policy implementation (Bertelli and Lewis, 2013), multiple agency policymaking (Bils, 2020), etc. In spite of these, there is still a need to conduct more studies on the dynamics of internal policymaking in government bureaucracies and their contributions to (national) public policymaking. For this purpose, the following questions have to be satisfactorily answered: What is the role of agencies in public policymaking? What factors affect their participation in public policymaking? Are there areas for autonomous public policymaking reserved for agencies? Do they produce better policies that lead to effective public service? What factors could this be attributed to? What is the state of internal policymaking in agencies? Or, how well-developed is the internal policymaking in agencies? What are the dynamics involved? References Bach, T., Niklasson, B. and Painter, M. (2012) The role of agencies in policy-making. Policy and Society. [online]. 31 (3), Policy and Society Associates Ltd Partnership, pp.183–193. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2012.07.001. Berry, C.R. and Gersen, J.E. (2017) Agency design and political control. The Yale Law Journal. [online]. 126 (4), pp.1002–1049. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44863339. Bertelli, A.M. and Lewis, D.E. (2013) Policy influence, agency-specific expertise, and exit in the federal service. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. [online]. 23 (2), pp.223–245. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24484815. Bils, P. (2020) Policymaking with multiple agencies. American Journal of Political Science. [online]. 64 (3), pp.634–648. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45295338. Clinton, J.D., Lewis, D.E. and Selin, J.L. (2014) Influencing the bureaucracy: The irony of congressional oversight. American Journal of Political Science. [online]. 58 (2), pp.387–401. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24363492. Feinstein, B.D. (2017) Designing executive agencies for congressional influence. Administrative Law Review. [online]. Spring (2), pp.259–289. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44648616. Judge-Lord, D. (2021) Public pressure campaigns and bureaucratic policymaking The University of Wisconsin-Madison. Koch, C.H. (2005) Policymaking by the administrative judiciary. Faculty Publications. [online]. 1278. Available from: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1278. Magillt, M.E. (2004) Agency choice of policymaking form. The University of Chicago Law Review. [online]. 71 (4), pp.1383–1447. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1600528. Mendelson, N.A. (2007) Regulatory beneficiaries and informal agency policymaking. Cornell Law Review. [online]. 397, pp.397–452. Available from: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol92/iss3/1. (Note: Not all references could not be included due to space limitations.) Format of the panel: Hybrid (onsite & online)

Much attention in governments in recent decades has been devoted to policy innovation in the public sector in recent years. This includes modernizing governments by developing effective and forward-thinking public service renewal strategies, developing an innovative, agile and resilient workforce, and adopting new digital, data and communications technology and techniques (Small and Jansen 2020; Clarke 2019; Longo 2022; Clarke and Dubois 2020). While some progress has been made to varying degrees in different countries, the overall progress has been relatively modest when measured by OECD surveys such as the OECD Digital Government Index, internal reports to governments such as the Report of the Clerk of the Privy Council or Budget officer reports, and academic studies (Roy 2017; Lindquist 2022). In some cases, attempts to innovate have led to major fiascos in implementation or serious problems with system replacement and integration (Cooper and Turgeon). The results have been mixed at best with a workforce that is divided or ambivalent or disaffected (particularly the new professionals (Migone, Brock and Howlett, 2023)) by the discrepancy between the promises and results. This panel will comprise papers that examine the challenges posed by implementing policy innovation in government on three levels united by the following research questions: 1. What are the most prevalent challenges to implementing policy innovation in governments in recent years, using policy labs, digitalization, big data techniques and artificial intelligence? 2. What policy implementations tools are the most effective to date and why? 3. Is the policy innovation implementation agenda as defined by government achieving the agile, effective workforce required in the current policy world to deal with new and transformative policy issues and crises (ex. COVID-19), or is it over-promising and under-delivering with the result of a disillusioned new professional cohort that is quiet quitting, disillusioned or resigned? While this panel cannot provide full or complete answers to these questions, it can begin to explore some of the embedded difficulties in transforming the policy environment to ensure that effective policy techniques are being implemented in governments that equip the current and future generations of policy workers to deal with more complex and intransient policy problems. The analyses will make a direct contribution to the literature on policy innovation and implementation and policy worker recruitment and retention (Bason 2010; Bessant 2005; Brown and Toze 2017; Cristofoli et al. 2022; Ertas 2015; Howlett et al. 2018; Mergel 2016; Ng et al. 2016; Cox and Rigby 2013; Wu et al. 2017). FORMAT: Onsite References: Bason, Christian. 2010. Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-Creating for a Better Society. 1st ed. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgnsd. Bessant, John. 2005. “Enabling Continuous and Discontinuous Innovation: Learning from the Private Sector.” Public Money & Management 25 (1): 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00448.x. Brown, David C. G., and Sandra Toze. 2017. “Information Governance in Digitized Public Administration.” Canadian Public Administration 60 (4): 581–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12227. Clarke, Amanda. 2019. Opening the Government of Canada: The Federal Bureaucracy in the Digital Age. UBC Press. Clarke, Amanda, and Elizabeth Dubois. 2020. “Digital Era Open Government and Democratic Governance: The Case of Government of Canada Wikipedia Editing.” Canadian Public Administration 63 (2): 177–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12356. Cooper, Christopher A., and Luc Turgeon. 2021. “The Phoenix Pay System and Intention to Quit the Federal Public Service.” Canadian Public Administration 64 (3): 389–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12434. Cristofoli, Daniela, Maria Cucciniello, Marta Micacchi, Benedetta Trivellato, Alex Turrini, and Giovanni Valotti. 2022. “‘One, None, and a Hundred Thousand’ Recipes for a Robust Response to Turbulence.” Public Administration, July, padm.12870. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12870. Ertas, Nevbahar. 2015. “Turnover Intentions and Work Motivations of Millennial Employees in Federal Service:” Public Personnel Management, June. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026015588193. Howlett, Michael, Giliberto Capano, and M. Ramesh. 2018. “Designing for Robustness: Surprise, Agility and Improvisation in Policy Design.” Policy and Society 37 (4): 405–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1504488. Lindquist, Evert A. 2022. “The Digital Era and Public Sector Reforms: Transformation or New Tools for Competing Values?” Canadian Public Administration n/a (n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12493. Mergel, Ines. 2016. “Agile Innovation Management in Government: A Research Agenda.” Government Information Quarterly, Open and Smart Governments: Strategies, Tools, and Experiences, 33 (3): 516–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.004. Migone, Andrea, Kathy Brock and Michael Howlett. 2023. “Deepening Digitization: Recruitment Challenges for Canadian Public Administration in the Areas of Digitalization and Modernization.” In Routledge handbook of Public Administration in the Digital Era. Edited by Sarah Giest, Ian Roberge and Thomas Klassen. Routledge: Forthcoming 2023. Ng, Eddy S. W., Charles W. Gossett, and Richard Winter. 2016. “Millennials and Public Service Renewal: Introduction on Millennials and Public Service Motivation (Psm).” Public Administration Quarterly 40 (3): 412–28. Roy, Jeffrey P. 2017. “Digital Government and Service Delivery: An Examination of Performance and Prospects.” Canadian Public Administration 60 (4): 538–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12231. Small, Tamara A., and Harold J. Jansen. 2020. Digital Politics in Canada: Promises and Realities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Thenint, Hugo, and Julie Basset. 2013. “Public Services.” In Innovation Policy Challenges for the 21st Century, edited by Deborah Cox and John Rigby. New York: Routledge. Wu, Xun, M. Ramesh, Michael Howlett, and Scott A. Fritzen. 2017. The Public Policy Primer: Managing the Policy Process. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a mega-crisis that not only presented governments worldwide with a major public health challenge, but also surfaced system failures, uneven collaboration within and across governments, and alternative ways to deliver services. Governments had to adapt quickly, release vast amounts of spending to deal with pressing public health and economic needs, work in new ways (often digitally), and wind-up programs. Governments are re-positioning public finances to deal with substantial fiscal and debt loads, and determining how to pivot from pandemic priorities towards future policies and service-delivery models in sector after sector. This raises important questions about how expenditure management systems of Canadian governments and other jurisdictions are evolving to meet these challenges, and the extent to which spending reviews have been launched, and if so, are they focused on cutting programs, reallocating to new ways of delivering policies, or collaborating across boundaries to address emerging challenges.

One of the major characteristics of “super wicked problems” (Levin et al., 2012; Auld et al. 2021) lies in the disconnect between, on the one hand, the framing of the problem through expert and academic knowledge, on-streets mobilizations and litigation, and on the other hand, the range of public policy solutions aimed at making the climate issue governable. In this regard, a substantial amount of academic work accounts for the way in which risk dramaturgies deployed by whistleblowers have managed to put the Anthropocene paradigm on the agenda. Policy research across the social sciences has also been able to account for why public policies have, so far, failed to overcome sectoral clashes, paths dependency and competing issues and are never up to the challenges deployed by cause entrepreneurs. Yet the dynamics pertaining to the knowledge production for public policies, the way in which it mutates and transforms according to circulations, tensions and criticisms, the enlistments to which they contribute, the arenas they navigate and the changes in public policies they produce, are yet to be examined. Drawing on the notion of policy analysis as an overarching concept (Geva-May, Howlett 2012; Cairney 2022), this panel focuses on the production of knowledge for public action (policy analysis) to re-examining transformative change in public policy processes (policy studies). It proposes to build a research agenda aimed at documenting and understanding how, by whom and in which arenas policy analysis to address the climate crisis is being produced and selected. More specifically, it examines how Policy analysis, as a specific type of knowledge, historically concentrated within the state apparatus and produced by large specialized bureaucracies or professions, takes up the ecological and climate problems, and generates acceptable policy solutions. This panel will take place onsite.

Despite a significant body of work, scholarship on policy implementation still remains underdeveloped and disjointed, particularly when it comes to bridging the gap between theory and practice. This panel will try to address that gap by marrying theoretical developments in implementation scholarship with work focused on practical issues faced by healthcare professionals trying to build collaborative relationships with colleagues. This panel will be split into two parts: The first part will focus on recent theoretical developments. Specifically, the contributions of the Multiple Streams Framework in helping to expand and develop theoretical insights into implementation and create explicit connections to democratic governance. The second part will focus on interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in healthcare as a case example of the practical issues that occur during policy implementation. Interprofessional Collaboration in Healthcare is a type of professional interaction characterized by mutual goals and values, aligned responsibilities, distributed power, shared decision-making, effective communication, and interdependent roles with a shared identity. The enactment of policies, procedures, processes, and practices that support a collaborative work environment has been identified as a facilitator. The development of IPC implies a dynamic way to organize healthcare in a more contextualized and person-centered way, focused on responding to people's needs. The objective of this panel is to pull together scholars working on policy implementation and discuss how to better bridge the gap between theoretical and practical work in this area, and how they can cross-pollinate to create a more robust understanding of the issues occurring during policy implementation. Additionally, this panel will expose other scholars to the work going on in this area and provide some guidance on how to join the conversation. Research question(s): · How do new theoretical models help to expand our understanding of policy implementation? · What theoretical and practical insights can these provide to strengthen and improve implementation processes? How do the practical issues that occur in interprofessional collaboration in healthcare challenge or contribute to theories of policy implementation Scientific relevance The key point of relevance is using state-of-the-art policy implementation theories to contribute to practical guidance for policy implementation that is otherwise lacking in recent scholarship. By taking a two-part approach, we hope to place a theoretical focus in the context of practical issues of healthcare and in this way, the panel will explore and expose the gaps between theory and practice.

COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the way many public servants work. In a matter of days, many public servants had to transition to remote work and used technology to perform functions they would normally perform in person (for example consultations, policy development and in certain cases, public service delivery). In North America, the pandemic also highlighted existing issues within the public service: systemic racism (Blessett and Gaynor 2021), disproportionate impacts on front-line public servants who are mothers (OECD 2020), and institutional barriers for innovation (Clarke 2021). With governments coming out of the pandemic and being able to re-focus on longer-term initiatives, it is important to focus on the future of work in public policy and administration. In Canada, much of the post pandemic debate focuses on transitioning to hybrid work arrangements and carrying on with the digital transformation initiatives (Lindquist 2022; Roy 2022). At the same time, there is a need for comprehensive analysis to understand systemic issues in the public service that hinder governments’ transformation initiatives and public service reforms. It is also very important to look into the future of the public sector, post COVID-19 pandemic, to inform both government strategic and operational initiatives. This panel will explore the future of public administration, existing transformation initiatives and their impact on public service, and will provide recommendations to inform government action. Specifically, the panel will discuss trends and developments (or lack of) in advancing digital government and other transformation agendas, systemic challenges and barriers faced by the public sector, and implications for policy-making and public service delivery. References: Blessett, Brandi, and Tia Sherèe Gaynor. 2021. “Race, Racism and Administrative Callousness: Using Critical Race Theory for a Race-Conscious Public Administration.” Public Integrity, 23(5): 455–458. Clarke, Amanda. 2021. One year into pandemic, federal government is largely business as usual. Policy Options: IRPP. Accessed online: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2021/one-year-intopandemic-federal-digital-government-is-largely-business-as-usual/ Lindquist, Evert A. 2022. “The digital era and public sector reforms: Transformation or new tools for competing values?” Canadian Public Administration: 1-22. OECD. 2020. Women at the core of the fight against COVID-19 crisis. Accessed online: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/women-at-the-core-of-the-fight-against-covid-19-crisis-553a8269/ Roy, Jeffrey. 2022. “COVID‐19, Digitization and Hybrid Workspaces: A Critical Inflection Point for Public Sector Governance and Workforce Development.” Canadian Public Administration: 1-7.

Digitalization is now a feature of governments around the world. UNESCO defines digital government (DG) as: ‘The public sector’s use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) with the aim of improving information and service delivery, encouraging citizen participation in the decision-making process and making government more accountable, transparent, and effective’ (UNESCO 2011: p. 634, cited in Gil-Garcia et al., 2018). While digitalization may result in more efficient services, minimize red tape, enable input from citizens, and lead to more equal services, it could also hinder professional discretion, reduce the accessibility of some groups to services, and harm equality and the ability of service users to be heard (e.g., Larsson et al., 2021). While it is clear that digitalization is here to stay, there are theoretical and empirical gaps in the literature on its implications for public services (Plesner et al., 2018; Lindgren et al., 2019). Our aim is to explore one aspect of digitalization: its implications for professionals and citizens. The digitalization of public services has changed the roles of professionals and citizens (service users), as well as the encounter between them, leading to a new kind of relationship (Lindgren et al. 2019). The panel will explore and develop the theoretical and empirical implications of the implementation of digitalization for professionals and citizens and the encounter between them, based on public policy literature (e.g., street-level bureaucrats, Lipsky, 2010; institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework, Ostrom, 2011), to better understand the digitalization processes in public organizations. Embracing an inclusive standpoint, we would like to receive papers exploring the following questions, while remaining open to other possibilities: 1. What can public policy theory contribute to the understanding of the place of professionals and citizens in the implementation of digitalization in public organizations? 2. How has the role of professionals in public organizations changed because of digitalization? 3. How has the place of citizens in public organizations changed because of digitalization? 4. How has the relationship between professionals and citizens changed because of digitalization in public organizations? 5. Are there differences between different countries in the effect on professionals and citizens of the implementation of digitalization processes? While we are happy to receive theoretical and empirical papers, we prefer comparative studies including more than one country. The abstract will be judged based on the clarity of the theoretical frame and the method. References Gil-Garcia, J. R., Dawes, S. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633-646. Larsson, K. K. (2021). Digitization or equality: When government automation covers some, but not all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101547. Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427-436. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th-anniversary edition). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Plesner, U., Justesen, L., & Glerup, C. (2018). The transformation of work in digitized public sector organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7-27.

Since the food price crisis of 2008 various governments have developed comprehensive national food policies, strategies, and policy councils including Scotland (2009), UK (2010), Wales (2010), Australia (2013), Ireland (2014). Canada has been a rather hesitant late comer to the food policy making process and launched its first comprehensive federal food policy, The Food Policy for Canada (FPC) in June 2019. This was followed by the announcement of the Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council in February 2021. While the advocates of an integrated, comprehensive, and coherent food policy environment hope that these developments address a diverse range of issues dealing with food from field to table, they are also cautious in their optimism, remembering Canada’s earlier failures such as A Food Strategy for Canada (1977) and Canada’s Action Plan for Food Security (1998). Various studies have been attributing this slow development to complexities dealing with the wicked nature of food policy and challenges arising from multi-stakeholder policy processes (Bancerz, 2019), the multi-jurisdictional nature of the policy making process and limitations to cooperation among different branches of governments (Andrée, Coulis and Ballamingie, 2018; FSC, 2017;Koc, MacRae, Desjardins and Roberts, 2008; Koc and Bas, 2012; Levkoe, 2017; MacRae and Abergel, 2012; Skogstad, 2012). However, as MacRae argues, the problem is not necessarily in the content of the policies or the challenges during the policy making process, but often due to a lack of clarity and commitment to their implementation including weak instrument design choices (MacRae cited in Briere, 2022). Even the best policies with great transformative potential can fail in the face of these many forms of implementation deficiency. One of the best international examples was the hostility towards the successful Zero Hunger policy in Brazil by the Bolsonaro government (Maluf, 2022; Burlandy, Rocha, Camacho Dias, 2022).

GENERAL OBJECTIVES: This panel will gather works employing and extending or adapting the Policy Capacity Framework (Wu et al. 2015), in different ways and from distinct policy sectors, to better understand implementation process in high income (HICs) and low- and-middle income countries (LMICs). Either theoretically/methodologically or applied to case studies or comparative analysis in distinct contexts, papers will show how diverse mix of policy capacity, or an specify type of capacity, takes place at the organizational, individual and/or systemic levels - in a nested relational way -, and can be used to broader our understanding on diverse challenges and critical capacities needed for effective implementation. For instance, works will show how implementation capacity can highlight critical capacities, inform policy design and/or implementation to readapt and re-implement policies and to build different types of capacities. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: -How different mixes of types of capacity can contribute to effective implementation in HICs or/and LMICs, from a case study and comparative perspectives? -To what extent political individual capacity and systemic capacities can play a dominant role in the implementation in LMICs – specially at the front level, and how it articulates with other levels of the implementation, focusing on one or on distinct spheres of the government - at the national and/or state or municipal - and types of capacity? - How implementation analysis employing the PCF and modes of governance can contribute to high levels of policymaking/design capacity linked to more effective implementation? - How implementation analysis focusing on policy capacity can be used in policy adaptation and re-adaptation, either from a policy learning or capacity building perspective, or other. - How the concept of society capacity can be brought to the PCF, giving a demand perspective, calling attention to how societies perspectives and satisfactions can frame the capacity to implement programmes/ policies? - Are there another missing capacity type or links that could be brought to the PCF, adapting or extending it? SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE This panel will advance the implementation of the Policy Capacity Framework (PCF) (Wu et al. 2015) applied to implementation analysis in high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) concerning different types of Public Policies and interdisciplinary fields. Implementation can be considered as the Achilles heel of implementation policy processes, as it involves different types of actors working or relating to distinct policy levels. Therefore, the capacity of distinct actors and institutions (involving skills and resources and diverse capabilities) to implement effective public policies have always been considered, and in a separated way, by distinct micro, meso and more systemic approaches. However, it was with the generation and further development of the PCF that the concept of policy capacity was systematized in an integrated multidimensional and nested way: putting together three different types of capacity (analytical, organizational and political) and related/nested levels where they can operate (individual, organizational, systemic) The PCF has contributed to and can be advanced to increase our understand of policy process. It has been used to analyse critical capacities for implementation success (or better understanding of Achilles heel of implementation), in a multidimensional nested way. It has been relevant to foster our knowledge of complex implementation processes, being extended or adapted to employ large surveys with policy workers or understand single and small comparative case studies, adding new types of capacity (missing links) or further working in a multidimensional way on capacities originally considered in the framework. However, the advance of implementation analyses employing the PCF is needed to better systematize and consolidate our understanding on how mixes of capacity can strengthen implementation processes in HICs and LMICs, both in a separated and comparative way.

Bureaucratic dysfunctions—such as red tape, goal subversions, capacity deficits or implementation gaps—have centre stage in the debate about the performance of public administrations. Bureaucratic discretion—the freedom of public officials to choose between courses of action—can be a fundamental resource for public performance. In fact, part of the literature on discretion highlights the importance of individualised judgement, accommodation to citizens’ needs, effective use of local knowledge, and avoidance of formalism. However, organisational theory also recognises that bureaucrats are people with values, feelings, and emotions, which may bind their rationality in decision-making processes, contributes to significant biases, and produce unwanted effects. Further, the literature highlights several negative sides in the discretion granted to bureaucrats: subversion of policy goals, favouritism, abuse of power, tokenism, gatekeeping, omissions, prejudice, blame-avoidance, bureau-shaping attitudes and others. Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein (2021) have recently popularised noise as a type of error that produces unwanted variability in the judgment of similar cases (Kahneman, Sibony, and Sunstein 2021). Noise happens when public officials examine the same case but take different decisions. Inconsistency in administrative action is a problem for equal treatment and policy effectiveness. On the one hand, citizens are treated differently, notwithstanding similar conditions and requests, undermining a fundamental principle of the administrative legitimacy of democratic regimes. On the other, especially in the case of professional judgements, noisy administrations will systematically deliver wrong solutions. If similar cases are dealt with differently, some of these decisions will be mistaken, threatening the delivery of effective solutions to public problems. Most studies of the downsides of discretion look for the variability of decisions at the individual level, whereas noise regards systemic administrative inconsistency, which is often hard to detect. Noise has been measured in sectors as diverse as sentencing (Anderson, Kling, Stith 1999), refugee asylum (Ramji-Nogales, Schoenholtz, and Schrag 2007), decisions to grant patents (Lemley, Sampat 2012), fingerprints recognition, diagnostic readings, medical prescriptions and anti-seismic regulation (Busetti, Righettini, Sbalchiero 2022). However, in the family of bureaucratic dysfunctions, the recognition of administrative inconsistency and the design and implementation of tools and programs to measure and deal with it are still in their infancy. The panel aims to explore the benefits and dysfunctions of bureaucratic discretion, investigating the border between its positive and negative sides. Contributions will cover the causes of discretionary decisions, their impacts, and the relevant programs and tools. The central hypothesis is that there is a trade-off between constraints to discretion and policy effectiveness, whereas dysfunctions may be reduced together with policy effectiveness. The panel will be onsite.

Social and political awareness of the need for climate action has increased globally, and in recent years many climate change policies and laws have been adopted across all levels of government. Despite this, however, progress on achieving key climate action goals is slow and uneven. Emissions reduction commitments under the Nationally Determined Contributions are inadequate to reduce emissions in line with either the 1.5C or 2C temperature targets set out in the Paris Agreement, and annual global emissions continue to grow, albeit at a slowing rate. The 2022 UN Environment Emissions Gap Report concludes that there is currently no credible pathway forward to achieve the temperature targets in the Paris Agreement given current policy commitments and action. Similarly, implementation of adaptation responses to address the unavoidable consequences of climate change continues to lag growing risks, and current evidence demonstrates that adaptation remains fragmented and incremental. Worryingly, evidence on the emergence of maladaptive outcomes is growing. Accelerating effective implementation of climate action policies is crucial to reduce future climate risks, particularly for those risks that exceed our ability to adapt. This panel examines the policy implementation gap between climate action goals and realized emissions and resilience pathways. Much of the climate policy literature focuses on processes, principles and outcomes associated with policy planning and design. There is less research on the mechanisms that drive successful policy implementation, and the conditions under which these outcomes are achieved. The literature broadly points towards factors like ‘inclusive governance’, ‘enough resources’, ‘leadership’ and ‘enabling social-political environments’ as criteria for successful implementation, but how these factors vary or intersect to shape implementation outcomes in diverse contexts is less clearly understood. Issues like the politics of implementation are hardly considered at all in the literature. As the pace of climate change accelerates and the need to achieve substantive progress on mitigation and adaptation becomes more urgent, it is critical to close implementation gaps between emission reduction targets, resilience targets, and climate change policies. This panel will examine variations in policy implementation outcomes across places, sectors, and scales; institutional, organizational, and political dynamics that may explain differences in policy implementation outcomes; accountability for implementation failure; and policy learning from implementation outcomes. The panel will held onsite.

Knowledge and expertise are key components of policy-making and policy design, and many institutions and processes exist – universities, professional policy analysts, think tanks, policy labs, etc. – to generate and mobilize knowledge for effective policies and policy-making. Despite many years of research, however. many critical ssues remain unexplored, including the nature of knowledge and non-knowledge, how policy advice is organized into advisory systems or regimes, and when and how specific types of knowledge or evidence are transmitted and influence policy development and implementation. These long-stnading issues have been joined recently by use of Artificial Intelligence and Big data, and other kinds of technological developments – such as crowdsourcing through open collaboration platforms, virtual labour markets, and tournaments – which hold out the promise of automating, enhancing. or expanding policy advisory activities in government. This panel seeks to explore all aspects of the application of current and future technologies to policy advice, including case studies of its deployment as well as theoretical and conceptual studies dealing with moral, epistemological and other issues surrounding its use.

The literature on policy design has made great strides in assessing the more macro-level aspects of policy-making such as governance arrangements and policy paradigms and the meso-level world of policy objectives and tools, while it has tended not to examine very closely the micro-level of policies. Major figures in the field have occasionally touched on micro-level design issues but have typically quickly moved on and left a legacy of incomplete typologies and partial observations (Salamon 1989, 2001, 2002; Linder and Peters 1989; 2000; Ostrom 2005; 2010). This theoretical gap makes it difficult to understand what policymakers can or should do when they decide how to address a policy problem (Capano and Howlett 2020). Is a radical policy change necessary to achieve a significant change in policy outcomes, for example, or is a partial/marginal change sufficient (Sewerin et al 2022)? And what precisely does a policy intervention entail, beyond general statement of intent, and what difference does it make? Inadequate answers to these questions make it difficult to gauge policy performance, which is measured in terms of the decision’s real impact on society and is a key concern for policy-makers and practitioners (Dunlop et al 2022). Policy design research has, however, recently begun to deal with the 'micro' level of policy-making, that is, the creation and assignment of policy targets and the calibration of policy tools required to achieve them. This work has helped clarify somewhat the general content of this level of policy design and practice (Shaffrin et al. 2014; Howlett, Ramesh and Capano 2022; Petek et al. 2021; 2022; Siddiki and Curley 2022) but has also raised many questions about how this content is actualized in practice. Without a deeper theoretical and empirical perspective on the micro-dimensions of policy design many relevant questions of policy making remain opaque. These include questions such as whether and how policy design really influences policy outcomes and performance? How much each of the different dimensions (macro-meso-micro) of policy design drive policy-makers decisions? And how the characteristics of the micro dimensions of policy design drive policy change. References Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2021). Causal logics and mechanisms in policy design: How and why adopting a mechanistic perspective can improve policy design. Public Policy and Administration, 36(2), 141–162. Dunlop, C. A., Kamkhaji, J. C., Radaelli, C. M., & Taffoni, G. (2022). Measuring design diversity: A new application of Ostrom’s rule types. Policy Studies Journal, 50(2), 432–452. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Capano, G. (2022). The role of tool calibrations and policy specifications in policy change: Evidence from healthcare reform efforts in South Korea 1988-2021. Journal of Asian Public Policy, online first 2 February. Linder, S. H., & B. G. Peters. (1989). ‘Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts’. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35–58. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672 Petek, A., Baketa, N., Kekez, A., Kovačić, M., Munta, M., Petković, K., Šinko, M., & Zgurić, B. (2021). ‘Unboxing the vague notion of policy goals: Comparison of Croatian public policies.’ European Policy Analysis 7(2), 451–469. Petek, A., Zgurić, B., Šinko, M. et al. (2022). From hierarchy to continuum: classifying the technical dimension of policy goals. Policy Sciences, early view 30 September Peters, B. G. (2000). Policy instruments and public management: Bridging the gaps. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 35–47. Salamon, L. M. (ed.) (1989). Beyond privatization. The tools of government action. The Urban Institute Press. Salamon, L. M. (2001). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(5), 1611–1674 Salamon, L. M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford University Press, Schaffrin, A., Sewerin, S., & Seubert, S. (2014). ‘The innovativeness of national policy portfolios – climate policy change in Austria, Germany, and the UK’. Environmental Politics, 23(5) (September 3), 860–883. Sewerin, S., Cashore, B., & Howlett, M. (2022). “Beyond dichotomies in the analysis of policy change: Utilizing logics of policy change for understanding ‘vicious’ and ‘virtuous’ policy trajectories”. Policy and Politics, 50 (3), 442–459. Siddiki, S., & Curley, C. (2022). Conceptualising policy design in the policy process, Policy & Politics, 50(1), 117-135.

Public policy scholars increasingly deal with wicked, unstructured, or messy problems (Head 2022). To address such problems in policy design, there is an increasing call for participation of various actors in general and in research more specifically – discussing here concepts such as ‘transdisciplinary research’, ‘citizen science’, ‘dual modes of science communication’, ‘public engagement’ and many others (Hou et al., 2022; Hodgkinson et al., 2022). In this session, we would like to reflect on the role of these participatory research approaches in policy design, and for problem structuring (Simon, 1973), more specifically. Participatory research introduces new arenas for policy design – from traditional formats such as roundtable discussions to new formats such as participatory modeling and scenario building, serious gaming, or citizen science. Participatory research may thus also bring additional actors into policy design processes, amongst them researchers and stakeholders from different societal sectors such as businesses, civil society organizations, and even individual citizens. Through policy recommendations and at times even co-operation and co-design with decision makers, participatory research may not only bring new knowledge into scientific policy advice but also new dynamics of defining problem structures and solutions, with more or less uncertain, complex, and conflictive issues and correspondingly also more or less complex policy mixes. Still, we do not yet fully understand the potential effects of participatory research on (i) transforming “ill-structured problems” into “well-structured ones” (Simon 1973, Hoppe, 2011), (ii) the resulting complexity of recommended policy mixes (Kirschke & Kosow, 2021), and (iii) the effects of policy recommendations on policy design including changes in evidence-based and interest-based policies. Therefore, this panel asks about the different formats of participatory research and how they may affect policy design in wicked problem settings. References Head, B. W. (2022). The Rise of ‘Wicked Problems’—Uncertainty, Complexity and Divergence. In Wicked Problems in Public Policy (pp. 21-36). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Hodgkinson, I. R., Mousavi, S., & Hughes, P. (2022). New development: Citizen science—discovering (new) solutions to wicked problems. Public Money & Management, 42(2), 133-136. Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Policy Press. Hou, X., Li, R., & Song, Z. (2022). A Bibliometric Analysis of Wicked Problems: From Single Discipline to Transdisciplinarity. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 1-31. Kirschke, S., & Kosow, H. (2022). Designing policy mixes for emerging wicked problems. The case of pharmaceutical residues in freshwaters. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 24(5), 486-497. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial intelligence, 4(3-4), 181-201.

The goal of this panel is to gather papers that engage with the relationship between political scientists and policy practice. Recently there has been a wide debate as to whether and how political science is relevant to the “real” policy world. Scholars often operationalize “boundary work” essentially as policy advisory practices (Brans and Timmermans 2021; Pattyn et al. 2022). However, the existing literature highlights that there are also other ways through which scholars can produce an impact on public policy, e.g. (but not limited to) co-production (Howlett et al. 2017). During the pandemic we have seen medical and economic evidence acquiring a major role in policymaking, with advisory bodies made up of scientists who regularly communicated with policymakers (Hadorn et al. 2022). However, political science and public policy scholars apparently have not stood out as having such a pivotal role. If we assume that practical relevance matters to political scientists, this lack of presence and visibility deserves investigation, as a potential sign of real or perceived irrelevance of the discipline to solving policy problems. As a matter of fact, political scientists regularly put in place projects and activities that aim to shape policy in one way or another: policy labs, policy advice, workshops aimed at scientists to improve their capacity to communicate with policymakers, etc. In doing so they create a connection between academia and policy. However, this link is not always detected or valued, as shown by the fact that it rarely emerges in studies on evidence-based policy and more generally on the use of knowledge in policymaking (Capano and Malandrino 2022). An overarching theoretical question remains as to whether there actually is a call for academia to shape policy at all: is it really important that political scientists carry out activities that have a tangible impact on real-world policy? Whether the answer is yes or no, what is the epistemological basis that justifies it? In other words, where does the normative dimension stand, i.e. what should political science be about – feeding purely theoretical debates or serving advancement in political decision-making and policy implementation? And, in the latter case, what is meant by advancement? On an empirical level, if we assume that the role of political science goes beyond pure speculation to involve work that shapes policy, what are the forms, contents, goals and results of such work? And what are the perceptions and drives of this kind of work? References Brans M., Timmermans A. (Eds.). 2021. The advisory roles of political scientists in Europe. Comparing engagements in policy advisory systems. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Capano G., Malandrino A. 2022. Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020). Policy Sciences 55(3):399-428. Hadorn S., Sager F., Mavrot C., Malandrino A., Ege J. 2022. Evidence-Based Policymaking in Times of Acute Crisis: Comparing the Use of Scientific Knowledge in Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 63(2):359-382. Howlett M., Kekez A., Poocharoen O. 2017. Understanding Co-Production as a Policy Tool: Integrating New Public Governance and Comparative Policy Theory. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 19(5):487-501. Pattyn V., Jungblut J., Blum S., Squevin P. 2022. Which political scientists engage more in boundary-crossing work than others? A European study. Paper prepared for IWPP3, Budapest, 28-30 June 2022.

I. Background and General Objectives of the Panel Due to globalization and the excessive use of natural resources, many of the problems that global society faces nowadays have to do with sustainability. After the publication of “The Tragedy of the Commons” by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968 and the “Brundtland Report” in 1987, the concept of sustainable development was then included in many political agendas of the countries worldwide. Even though the scientific literature about sustainable development has varied—especially in economics and political economy—there are still several gaps between many theoretical approaches to the topic and their application in a global society. In Latin America, the problem of sustainability and development has exciting and unique connotations, posing additional challenges to the existing problem of inequality and poverty in the region. According to the United Nations, Latin America is today the region with the highest level of inequality globally. Despite its economic growth in the last decades, Latin America still suffers from severe income inequality, abject poverty, and poor policy design and implementation. Moreover, 2020 represented one of the most critical milestones in policy-related issues in recent decades. With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) making a pandemic, Latin America entered an acute phase not only from a health point of view but also from an economic, social, and environmental point of view. Accordingly, COVID-19 revealed a significant problem with access to public goods in Latin America, including technology and the internet. On top of being the region with the highest level of inequality worldwide, the pandemic showed the incapacity of many Latin American countries to guarantee access to technology and connectivity to most people, adding more pressure to its fragile productive structure and social cohesion. This post-pandemic era, together with the consequences of the international conflict between Russia and Ukraine, is now characterized by a wider gap between the rich and the poor in the region, marked by a weakening in the capacity of the governments in producing high-quality and effective policies that would face these challenges. Thus, the primary objectives of the panel “Latin America 2030: Sustainable Development and the Digital Transformation of the Region” is to actively promote new policy mechanisms, scholarship debate, and innovative proposals for the three most critical challenges of Latin America: i) Technological transformation and adaptation to the Digital Era; ii) The post-COVID-19 economic and social reactivation plan, and iii) Combating climate change and other environmental challenges in the region. This panel aims to close the gap between theories and methods on sustainability and new technology policies. II. Research Questions Our primary research question is how to promote and design sustainable development policies using new technologies in Latin America, considering the importance of the post-pandemic challenges and the issue of sustainability and climate change. This question opens the door to many other vital issues the region faces. For example, what policies are the governments implementing to accelerate the economic recovery after the pandemic? How can Latin America reduce the income inequality gap without distorting the market? What are the short and medium-term challenges for Latin America to comply with its international obligations regarding Climate Change? These are the main research questions that this panel will try to address. Hence, the challenges for Latin America are multiple. These range from adapting to the new dynamics in a post-pandemic era, namely, enhancing the health systems and other critical public investment, to establishing policies and strategies that ensure the current connectivity challenges and the digital age in the long term. The most pressing issues are threefold: To address structural issues regarding inequality and difficulties of access to new technologies for the region’s poorest and most disadvantaged people.To coordinate policies and plans for sustainable regional development in a post-pandemic context that includes economic, social, and political problems.To discuss the mechanisms through which Latin America can build resilient societies against climate change from a policy perspective. These issues are connected to the capacity of the public administration of the countries of Latin America to engage in these problems actively. Moreover, it will be necessary to consider the financial limitations and other issues, such as the international context, or the domestic politics of some key countries, that prevent the region from having a better path regarding its development. III. Scientific Relevance This panel offers the possibility to address the main research question of sustainability and connectivity in Latin America, including exploring some key working hypotheses. These hypotheses will cover many issues, such as the relationship between the use of technology and economic growth; the role of the Latin American states in promoting policies to reactivate their financial sector and prevent further economic crises; and whether sustainability can be effectively included in the policy design and implementation in the region. The multidisciplinary approach of this panel will enrich the dialogue of the debate in policy design and implementation, not only of scholars from the social sciences but also from other STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines. This multidiscipline approach is key to understanding how policies focused on natural phenomena (i.e., climate change or a virus pandemic) can affect social variables, such as migration, poverty, and inequality, among many others. Many social scientists are working to combine the traditional perspective of efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness of policy analysis with a more complex reality that entails using new technologies and the limited usage of natural resources. This new approach will, therefore, be scientifically relevant insofar as it will lead scholars to address the issue of sustainable public policies in a more technologically demanding society. The capacity of the states to adapt to these challenges and the ability of the policy scholars to identify them accurately will be fundamental to public administration in Latin America. Finally, the panel will bring experts worldwide that will share their knowledge and experience in the problem of implementation and analysis of new technologies in developing countries, addressing the issue of sustainable public policies in a post-COVID-19 agenda. Format of the panel: Onsite

The concept of policy design —both as a verb and a noun— refers simultaneously to a process and a product in order to underline the differences between non-design (the absence of decision), unconscious design (decision-making without a plan) and conscious design (decision-making based on policy learning). For the past four decades, the policy design framework has produced many different theories to assess the issues of causation, instrumentation, intervention and evaluation in decision-making and collective action. Causation is first and foremost related to problem structuring. Instrumentation commonly refers to the mobilization of state and private resources of information, regulation, finances and administrative organization. Evaluation is both about values and impact assessment, about what state and non-state actors consider “good” or “bad”, and how they assess the causal process conducting to policy outputs (policy instruments calibration) and outcomes (the ultimate result of the design process). Intervention combines coordination and policy style into a single entity: a governance mode. This panel is dedicated to operationalizing the latter. At the crossroad of policy analysis and policy-making, of fundamental and applied research, the concept of intervention comes from the literature on public administration and democratic governance. A governance mode is the product of a coordination model (at the intra-state level) and a political interplays model (between the state, society and the market), or policy style. While infra-state coordination can be centralised or decentralised, political interplays can be collaborative or competitive, according to government´s policy style. There is arguably a relationship between coordination and political interplays, insofar as the government's will and capacity to attend social demands depend on the coordination model favored by this government. However, this is no straightforward causation, so we’d rather deal separately with each one to avoid endogeneity. Which raises the problem of institutional consistency. At the very best, the institutional design articulates coordination and political interplays in a consistent governance mode. Yet there can also be an inconsistency (in institutional terms) between coordination and political interplays, which might eventually explain the outbreak of an implementation gap. In this panel we attempt to explore the relationship between policy design and institutional design. We invite scholars to present their research based on the following questions: How does policy design affect institutional consistency? How does institutional design affect policy outcomes? We welcome papers based on comparative policy analysis or within-case studies, to illustrate the conceptual and theoretical arguments made by their authors.

Focused on individualised disability policy, the objectives of this panel are to bring critical attention to the hidden conditions, contradictions and impacts on disability rights across different policy frameworks and operating arrangements; expose and benchmark how countries approach rights obligations and the extent to which these are being met; and identify strategies to inform more comprehensive and robust policy responses to safeguard rights. Article 19 of the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) puts the onus on countries to address equal rights and choices for persons with disabilities, although the promotion and protection of rights is left to the discretion of individual countries. Unfortunately, domestic disability policy and law are often weak instruments, which fail to adequately or equally address rights[1],[2]. This is the case in Australia, Ireland and England regarding individualised funding strategies for disability support, which aim to give effect to obligations of equality and choice under the CRPD. Australia has human rights charters in some states and a federal Disability Discrimination Act 1992 but legislative ambiguity surrounds support entitlements under its universal disability insurance scheme[3]. Ireland has explicit rights protections in its Constitution, but weak emphasis on social and economic rights, and support entitlements outside a right to be assessed. The United Kingdom has the Human Rights Act 1998 and different human rights frameworks at national and regional levels, but legislation is insufficient to ensure access to rights4. In different ways, all these countries fall short of a comprehensive rights-based design,1,3,5 encouraging discretion and value dilemmas, with differential impacts on those with weak citizenship status and advocacy capacity1,2,[4],[5]. Doubtless, other countries with individualised disability funding also face the challenges of designing rights into policy sufficiently and robustly enough to realise and safeguard the rights of people with disability. How public policies pertaining to rights to disability support are designed and implemented (including the choice of policy instruments[6]) hence constitutes a major political, social and ethical challenge. Key questions for governments and policy researchers are: what are the strongest types of design tools and instruments to actually realise disability rights, not just articulate them? How can policy practitioners design rights-based, rights-compliant and administratively just policy for individualised disability support? This panel will be onsite. [1] McCausland et al. (2018) The exercise of human rights and citizenship by older adults with an intellectual disability in Ireland. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 62(10).[2] Prince (2010) What about a disability rights act for Canada? Practices and lessons from America, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Canadian Public Policy, 36(2).[3] Foster et al. (2012) The politics of needs-based entitlement: perspectives on a proposal for a National Disability Long-term Care and Support Scheme in Australia. Social Policy and Society, 11(3).[4] Laragy (2018) The NDIS is delivering ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports for some, but others are missing out. The Mandarin, Oct.[5] Power et al. (2013) Active Citizenship and Disability: Implementing the Personalisation of Support.[6] Le Gales (2016) Performance measurement as a policy instrument, Policy Studies, 37(6).

The Panel is organized by: Geert Brinkman, Diana Pamela Villa Alvarez, Federico Vaz, Arwin Van Buuren and Jenny Lewis Policy design has been evolving in the policy sciences since the 1950s. It originated in the intent of applying knowledge more systematically to policy formulation and thereby improving policy outcomes (Lasswell & Lerner, 1951). For a long time, this rational-instrumental logic underpinned thinking about policy design (Clarke & Craft, 2018). However, in the past few decades, a more creative-purposive take on policy design has been emerging as well (Hermus et al., 2020). This new orientation to policy design draws methods, techniques and practices from graphic, product, interaction, and service design (Vaz & Prendeville, 2019; Villa Alvarez et al., 2022) and often goes by the names of ‘design thinking’ or ‘design-for-policy’ (Bason, 2014). Instead of taking a problem-to-be-solved or a solution-to-be-optimized as a starting point, this design orientation takes value-to-be-created as a starting point (Dorst, 2015). It revolves around reframing problems, coming up with innovative ideas, and learning towards solutions in progressive iterative cycles of trial-and-error in which the problem and solution co-evolve (Dorst & Cross, 2001). Rather than a rational-instrumental logic, a creative-purposive logic underpins this design orientation. As such, it is complementary to this traditional design orientation (Lewis et al., 2020) and thus seen as a promising alternative to address present day’s public issues (Blomkamp, 2018; Van Buuren et al., 2020). For these reasons, public organizations around the world are experimenting with design-for-policy (Bason, 2014). This is often done in a protected environment such as a public sector innovation lab (McGann et al., 2018). However, to date, there is little evidence of long-term adoption of this design orientation in public organizations (Lewis, 2021; Villa Alvarez, 2022) and its impact on policy formulation (Lewis et al., 2020). Conversely, design-for-policy is often surreptitiously introduced as the operationalization of open policy agendas (Vaz Canosa, 2020). In light of this, multiple scholars have raised their concerns on whether this new design orientation fits within established policy design and public administation traditions found in most public organizations (Mintrom & Luetjens, 2016; Clarke & Craft, 2018; Howlett, 2020). One of the concerns is that the context within which design-for-policy is applied is insufficiently taken into account (Clarke & Craft, 2018; Howlett, 2020; Van Buuren, 2020). For instance, questions of how this design orientation may serve political agendas (Vaz, 2020) or deal with political constraints (Clarke & Craft, 2018; Howlett, 2020) remains unanswered. Additionally, the uptake of design-for-policy requires the development of particular individual and organizational capabilities (Malmberg, 2017), going beyond providing training (Wrigley et al., 2020). The need for ‘institutional work’ to develop design capability in public organizations is increasingly recognized (Bason 2010; Bason 2017; Junginger 2017; Vink et al., 2021). Yet, how this can be done is still unclear. Finally, it remains the question how abovementioned seemingly contrasting rational-instrumental and creative-purposive design orientations can co-exist symbiotically in public organizations.

In spite of the large number of anti‐corruption reforms implemented in different countries, there has been little research that empirically assesses the impact of these efforts on corruption (Hanna et al., 2011; Johnsøn and Søreide, 2013; Mugellini et al., 2021). In particular, there has been a lack of empirical assessments of the implementation and effectiveness of anti‐corruption measures acknowledging the differences between policies developed in the public sector and within private companies. The main goal of this panel is to identify the main types of anti-corruption policies developed in the public and private sector (within private companies), and assess their impact on corruption. In this way, strategies taken by both the demand and supply side of the corrupt transaction are considered and assessed. The focus of this review is administrative corruption, namely corrupt acts involving civil servants in their dealings with their superiors, during the implementation of public policies, or while interacting with the public for service delivery, and private‐to‐private corruption (involving only private actors). While pursuing the above‐mentioned main goal, this panel aims to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the main types of anti-corruption interventions developed in the public and private sector? 2. What interventions have a significant effect on the level of corruption? 3. Do different types of interventions (e.g., economic, educational, organizational, legal, etc.) have different effects on the level of corruption? 4. Does the effect of the interventions vary across public areas (e.g., health, education, etc.) and business sector of activity (e.g., construction, retail, etc.)? 5. Does the effect of the interventions vary across high‐ and low‐income countries? 6. Does the effect of the interventions vary by type of corruption (e.g. bribery vs misappropriation of public resources; extortive vs collusive corruption)? In terms of scientific relevance, this panel will address two main issues in the field of corruption and anti-corruption studies: 1. The impact of New Public Management reform on corruption. In particular, if anti-corruption strategies developed in the private sector are more successful than those developed in the public sector, and if they can be effectively applied and adapted to tackle public sector corruption. 2. Measurement of corruption and evaluation of anti-corruption policies. In particular, the panel will also focus on the type of data existing studies use to overcome the corruption measurement problems (i.e., hidden and collusive illegal behaviors with very low reporting rate to relevant authorities) and what method they employ to assess policy impact. From a more practical point of view, contributions to this panel will provide policy makers and practitioners with evidence that can be used to orient anti-corruption policies. Bibliography: Hanna, R., Bishop, S., Nadel, S., Scheffler, G., & Durlacher, K., 2011, The effectiveness of anti‐corruption policy: what has worked, what hasn't, and what we don't know: a systematic review. Technical Report, London: EPPI‐Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Johnsøn, J., & Søreide, T. (2013). Methods for learning what works and why in anti‐corruption: An introduction to evaluation methods for practitioners. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute (U4 Issue 2013:8). Mugellini, G., Della Bella, S., Colagrossi, M., Isenring, G.L., and Killias, M. (2021). Administrative reforms in the public sector and their impact on the level of corruption: A systematic review. The Campbell Collaboration. Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1173

The belief that improved use of evidence, or knowledge, will lead to better policy is often taken for granted and has been a powerful rallying point for decades across academia and policy. Many countries have attempted to put in place systems and practices for evidence to inform policy, with some Anglo-Saxon countries investing vast resources in this area (e.g., What Works Clearinghouses in the US and What Works Centres in the UK to name a few). Despite decades of research and investment, practical examples of evidence use and evaluation of its impact on policy continue to raise thorny questions and are relatively underexplored outside health. Although there is a growing scholarship on Evidence Informed Policy Making (EIPM), it is generally situated in a positivist tradition, which often mutes or ignores the role of politics, framing policy-making as a mechanistic and objective process. The meaning of evidence and its use are often seen as being unproblematic. The critical empirical research which does exist is often based on a single policy area e.g., clinical research, health care, or social work – which makes it difficult to generalise (Smith, 2013; Bache, 2020; Cairney, 2016; Parkhurst et al., 2018). This panel will discuss and examine how evidence is currently being used in different contexts across the world, so that we can build better understanding of the practices and systems of evidence use. Many scholars in the field – and practitioners – recognise that evidence use can be difficult and is subject to multiple pressures – e.g., political agendas, elections, time, costs and other resource issues – and that evidence should be understood as one cog amongst many others in the making of policy. By drawing on research from different contexts and perspectives, especially with comparative analyses, we aim to reflect on the different practices of evidence use and their impact. We welcome papers that advance understanding of the practices of evidence use in any way, providing either new empirical, theoretical, methodological, or comparative insights. Papers might examine the practices and/or politics of evidence use, and questions relating to the impact of evidence on policy. Questions include: o What are the practices of evidence mobilisation and wider systems of evidence use that currently exist in different contexts – country, government setting, different levels of government – and how do they work? (Comparative papers are particularly welcome).o How do different political systems and cultures influence how evidence is used? o How is evidence reconciled with other factors in the policy-making process such as resources, political agendas, and competing interests? o How have perceptions of evidence use in different contexts been challenged, adapted and/or changed during or following the Covid-19 pandemic?o What innovative methods are currently being used in different countries to measure the impact of evidence use? References Smith, K. (2013) Beyond Evidence-Based Policy in Public Health. Palgrave Macmillan: London. Bache, I. (2020) Evidence, Policy and Wellbeing. Palgrave Pivot: London. Cairney, P. (2016) The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Pivot: London. Parkhurst, J., Hawkins, B. and Ettelt, S. (2018) Evidence Use in Health Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

The following is a collaboration between the Design for Policy and Governance Special Interest Group (PoGoSIG) of the Design Research Society, the journal Policy Design and Practice, and the newly formed Policy Design Thematic Research Network of the IPPA. Despite the growth in research on policy design and design for policy, a significant gap in theorization remains about how these two concepts differ, relate, and interact with one another. There exists very little agreement on their relational trajectory with one course, policy design, originating in the policy studies tradition while the other, design for policy, being founded in design studies. The former sees the need for policy to embody a conscious design of its own making while the later holds that design is a pre-existing field of study unto itself that can be employed in accordance with policy formation (Bason, 2014; Howlett, 2019). Although explicitly connected to the same subject matter, each direction is built upon differing criteria and parameters thus creating two unique starting points which at times overlap and at other times deviate considerably. Recently, the design research community has been particularly active and has developed knowledge useful to manage complex processes, characterized by the participation of actors with different interests and cultures, in which the final recipients often have an active role as co-creators and co-producers (Sangiorgi & Prendiville, 2017; Mortati, et al., 2018). Innovative services and governance models are thus being explored and developed by designers within the public sector, either built from the bottom up (collaborative services) (Deserti et al., 2020) or trialing the role and relevance of new and disruptive technologies (AI, Virtual Reality, Blockchain, …) (Kuziemski & Misuraca, 2020). This track pays particular attention to new and upcoming areas of research where design disciplines and policy studies are exploring new ways toward convergence. In particular, it focuses on the green and digital transition as part of the most pressing priorities underpinning the transformation of governments. On the one hand, it calls for exploration on the use of new technologies (i.e. big data and algorithms) to develop and deliver public services (Dwivedi et al., 2021); on the other, it examines the use of creativity-based methodologies (i.e. co-creation and co-production) to reconcile the perspectives of government, citizens and society at large (i.e. participation in policymaking) (Rowe & Lynn, 2005; Recchi, 2015; Bobbio, 2019), especially when investigating what makes them specific to policy making.

Much of what we learn through the media and other sources about politics, economics, history, environmental and health issues originates in specialized expert knowledge. In the context of democratic societies, the questions of how this knowledge is produced, used and channeled into politics and how it influences policymaking have been studied extensively from a variety of theoretical and methodological angles (e.g., Abelson and Rastrick 2021; Boswell 2008; Christensen 2020; Góra, Holst and Warat 2018; Pfister and Horvath 2014; Rich 2004; Schlaufer, Sager and Stucki 2018; Stone 2013). The field has experienced further boost of scholarly interest during the global crisis related to the Covid-19 pandemic. Challenging state capacities to protect public health and simultaneously preserve public security and economic stability, the crisis has become a catalyzer of policymakers’ reliance on scientific evidence and expert knowledge worldwide. Despite this development, we still know little about the origins and contents of expert knowledge as well as its communication channels and effects on public policies in authoritarian and hybrid political environments. This panel’s main objective is to address this gap systematically. It seeks to bring together papers using distinct conceptual and methodological lenses to shed light on ontological and epistemological questions of studying expert knowledge and policymaking in illiberal environments. The questions central to this panel are: - How can we conceptualize the role of experts and expert knowledge in policy processes in authoritarian and hybrid political settings? - Who are considered to be influential experts in such settings? - How can we study their influence/impact on policymaking? What conceptual and methodological tools can we use to operationalize and measure their influence? - How is expert knowledge channeled to policymakers and the broader public? - What interaction effects can we observe between different groups of experts, policymakers, media and the public beyond liberal democracies? - (How) Is studying expert knowledge in illiberal settings different from democratic contexts? By cumulating insights into the above questions, this panel seeks to advance our understanding of how expert knowledge “works” and how we can study it beyond liberal policymaking environments. References Abelson, D. E. and Rastrick, C. J. (Eds.) (2021) Handbook on Think Tanks in Public Policy. Cheltenham: EE Publishing. Boswell, C. (2008) The Political Functions of Expert Knowledge. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 471-488. Christensen, J. (2021) Expert Knowledge and Policymaking: A Multi-disciplinary Research Agenda. Policy & Politics 49(3), 455-471. Góra, M., Holst, C. and Warat, M. (Eds.) (2018) Expertisation and Democracy in Europe. Abingdon: Routledge. Pfister, T. and Horvath, A. (2014) Reassessing Expert Knowledge and the Politics of Expertise. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27(4), 311-316. Rich, A. (2004) Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schlaufer, C., Sager, F., & Stucki, I. (2018) The Political Use of Evidence and Its Contribution to Democratic Discourse. Public Administration Review 78(4), 645-649. Stone, D. (2013) Knowledge Actors and Transnational Governance: The Private-Public Policy Nexis in the Global Agora. London: Palgrave.

The use of evidence to inform policy has been a continued field of interest in public policy studies. Recent global challenges such as COVID-19 or climate change mitigation have only further emphaised the importance of marshalling expertise, reseach, and scientific evidence to inform decision making. Yet the majority of work on the use of evidence for policy has focussed on individual studies, or considered factors affecting knoweldge translation and research uptake. Much less considered are holistic analyses of the systems by which governments utilise science and evidence to inform policy - drawing on policy theories and considering key public policy concerns. This panel considers governmental evidence advisory systems in order to reflect on how instituional arrangements shaping the provision of evidence for policy shape the governance of evidence (and subsequently of policy decision making) as a whole. Key questions include: - How are national evidence advisory or science advice systems institutionalised, and what are the policy implications of their structure and functions? - How might we evaluate or judge the strengths of different evidence advisory systems? And can they be compared beyond mere description? - How do the institutional arrangements of evidence and science advice shape how evidece use is governed - in terms of which evidence, for what purposes, and with what political implications? - How may evidence-advisory systems with the system affect governance, representation, and accountability more broadly in democratic states?

Panel Description (360/500) {can be as short as 300} This panel welcomes papers that engage with the theme of policy advice and its corresponding policy work. We welcome papers that explore the international, national, or local and domain specific aspects of policy advice and focus on either specific sets of actors or take systems approaches. Within the public policy literature the role of policy advice has steadily increased over the past 25 years. This has led to a number of important practical and theoretical developments such as Policy Advisory Systems (Craft and Halligan 2020; Diamond 2020), a refinement of our understanding of styles of policy advice (Aubin and Brans 2021), the role of external advisors (Galanti and Lippi 2022; Migone et al. 2022), and the contributions of individual advisors analyzed across multiple dimensions including experts, public servants, think tanks, consultants, and politicians and their appointed political staffs (Howlett and Walker 2012; Bertelli 2016). These multiple areas of research have contributed much to our understanding of the activities, motivations, processes and framing of policy advice across mainly countries with growing attention to a broader and more diverse array of countries, regions, and institutional models has emerged (Hustedt 2019; Howlett 2019). Nonetheless, major questions remain about how influence is gained, lost, and exercised in these advisory systems, and if patterns of influence vary by regimes, sectors and countries. Further, much less has been done to contribute to a dynamic understanding of the way in which policy advisors, or entire advisory systems, have either changed or stayed the course in their activity. A diachronic approach to policy advice, written large to encompass the study of change and continuity in the advisory ecosystem not just at the organizational level, but also in discussing the practices, processes and relations that shape this field of knowledge production, selection, and use, promises to provide a richer and much needed understanding of the very bases through which policy advice emerges and is used. Of particular relevance to this field should be the analysis of the effects that this dynamic evolution has had on the nature of knowledge, the role of policy advisors (both within and outside of public service) and the way in which the policy work ecosystem has been structured. Works Cited Aubin, David, and Marleen Brans. 2021. “Styles of Policy Advice: A Typology for Comparing the Standard Operating Procedures for the Provision of Policy Advice.” In The Routledge Handbook of Policy Styles, edited by Michael Howlett and Jale Tosun, 286–300. London ; New York: Routledge. Bertelli, Anthony M. 2016. “Who Are the Policy Workers, and What Are They Doing? Citizen’s Heuristics and Democratic Accountability in Complex Governance.” Public Performance & Management Review 40 (2): 208–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1180306. Craft, Jonathan, and John Halligan. 2020. Advising Governments in the Westminster Tradition: Policy Advisory Systems in Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108377133. Diamond, Patrick. 2020. “Polycentric Governance and Policy Advice: Lessons from Whitehall Policy Advisory Systems.” Policy & Politics 48 (4): 563–81. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15870482509817. Galanti, Maria Tullia, and Andrea Lippi. 2022. “Government Research Institutes in the Italian Policy Advisory System.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, February, 00208523211070510. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211070510. Howlett, Michael. 2019. “Comparing Policy Advisory Systems beyond the OECD: Models, Dynamics and the Second-Generation Research Agenda.” Policy Studies 40 (3–4): 241–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1557626. Howlett, Michael, and Richard M. Walker. 2012. “Public Managers in the Policy Process: More Evidence on the Missing Variable?” Policy Studies Journal 40 (2): 211–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00450.x. Hustedt, Thurid. 2019. “Studying Policy Advisory Systems: Beyond the Westminster-Bias?” Policy Studies 40 (3–4): 260–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1557627. Migone, Andrea, Michael R. McGregor, Kathy Brock, and Michael Howlett. 2022. “Super-Users and Hyper-Experts in the Provision of Policy Advice: Evidence from a Survey of Canadian Academics.” European Policy Analysis n/a (n/a). https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1139.

How do the consequences of a policy become a source of another social problem? This inquiry has been enduring in the social sciences, forming a long line of research. In an idealized version of the policy process, policies are typically regarded as a solution purposefully designed to address social problems or benefit certain groups without harming others. However, policies oftentimes become a source of new problems, unintentionally or even intentionally. This paradox is so common that we can find rich examples: e.g., stricter policy enforcement that increases social disparities in the justice system, raising the minimum wage increasing unemployment, and increasing the legal drinking age leading to riskier alcohol consumption. Side effects of blunt government measures are not a novel occurrence; social science scholars have long recognized this problem. For example, Robert K. Merton in 1936 and Aaron Wildavsky in 1980 already pointed to the occurrence of policy side effects (labeled as unintendend/unanticipated consequences) as emanating the interconnectivity of policy objectives and other components in society. Economic and policy analysis studies have developed sophisticated tools for assessing policy trade-offs, which are widely used in policymaking practice today, including cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis, to quantify policy side effects as costs and build a common ground to control the costs with respect to the benefits. In Political Science, policy feedback theory has attempted to explain how policies intentionally or unintentionally shape political landscapes and structure political behaviors and decisions. However, these early insights have yet to be incorporated into public policy scholarship to address practical challenges in dealing with policy side effects. This gap was especially exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic when governments implemented various stringent policy measures, that, while likely driving down COVID-19 cases also had devastating impacts on people’s lives and society across a range of outcomes. The extent to which these predictable side effects were considered in policy deliberations is not evident. Further, the two years of experience with the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that simply knowing the possibility that policy side effects might occur does not address dilemmas of policymaking during public health crises. How do we know when the side effects are significant enough to warrant reconsideration of the policy? Current policy literature rarely addresses how policymakers can better anticipate policy side effects and how to handle and respond to the side effects and subsequent political ramifications. This large research gap, therefore, raises questions about how we should understand policy side effects and handle them. In this regard, this panel opens an academic discussion on policy side effects by calling for papers that theoretically or empirically investigate issues of policy side effects. Example questions of interest include: - What are predictable policy side effects and how can we better anticipate them?- Why and when do policies produce side effects?- What are the social and political ramifications of policy side effects?- Are policy side effects socially constructed?- What are the types of moral dilemmas in implementing policies with expected side effects?

In recent years, many complex problems have emerged or become more acute, and they pose new and unprecedented challenges to public policies. The problems that have been troubling public policies for several decades (such as climate change, unequal distribution of development or social exclusion) have been supplemented by others, most notably the pandemic, increased migration pressure related to the ongoing armed conflicts or to environmental issues, the energy crisis in Europe and others. Many of these problems fall under the definition of wicked problems (Rittel and M. M. Webber 1973; Head, 2019; Peters, 2017; Danken et al., 2016; Turnbull and Hoppe, 2019). For example, Covid-19 crisis, which started as a health crisis, has quickly turned into a multitude of other field crises, such as an economic crisis, a governance issue (e.g. the trust in government), a social relationship crisis, a mental health crisis, an organizational crisis (e.g. in the public structures due the smart working modality), and an epistemic knowledge crisis (Cairney and Wellstead 2020; Weible et al. 2020; Selg, Klasche, and Nõgisto, 2021). Wicked problems, being highly complexed and multi-causal, have many interdependencies, and lead to unforeseen consequences. Usually, they cannot be conveniently handled by one policy and they go beyond the traditional ways public organizations are managed, also in the case of hybrid modalities. What is crucial from the evaluation and policy analysis standpoint, wicked policy problems require holistic rather than linear thinking, i.e. the identification of interconnections between the full range of causal factors and policy objectives is needed. Our hypothesis is that the perspectives of multilevel and collaborative governance, multiple institutions, and stakeholder involvement in tackling wicked issues challenge also the policy evaluation domain, both in terms of research theories and methodologies. Our panel aims to stimulate debate around what is needed to be changed or re-think in the policy evaluation field for the successful tackling of wicked problems and to provide fruitful, robust, relevant and timely delivered to policy-makers knowledge. Such a debate is a necessary precursor to re-assess current theories, systems, frameworks, and practice of analysis in public policies to ensure they are capable of responding to the complex issues they face nowadays.

This panel focuses on two central themes: resilience and responsible sociotechnical innovation. Here, we understand resilience as the responsiveness of policies and the durability of solutions, especially in the face of emergency situations, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Sociotechnical innovation should be understood as a process of change both in technological dimensions and in their relations with actors and social structures (Macnaghten et al., 2005; Lowe et al., 2008). Specific key issues (e.g., ethics, equality, governance, sustainability) and process dimensions (e.g., anticipation, reflexivity) must also be contemplated for innovations to be considered responsible. We intend to gather studies with a primary focus on sociotechnical innovation, as a dimension to be observed, and on accountability, as a characteristic to be valued. Likewise, we seek to attract studies that evaluate more resilient policies and their potential learning for applications in future emergencies. Analyses of national and subnational experiences in formulating, implementing and evaluating the results of public policies in different contexts will be welcome, contributing to identifying social and political practices that favour the construction of a more sustainable, egalitarian and resilient political and socioeconomic agenda in the face of instabilities and different crises. The theoretical debate is inspired by the emerging research field of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), which emerged in the past decade under the impetus of innovation studies and science and technology policymaking. RRI emphasizes participatory and inclusive approaches in developing solutions that are "ethically acceptable, sustainable, and socially desirable" in addressing major societal challenges, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Von Schomberg, 2013). Four procedural requirements are emphasized by this approach: 1) anticipation of risks, impacts, and consequences of innovations; 2) reflexivity towards the value systems and social practices that govern innovation; 3) inclusive development processes; and 4) responsiveness to knowledge, outcomes, and changing contexts (Stilgoe et al., 2013). In the context of the Covid-19 health crisis, sociotechnical innovations played a central role and, by definition, should play a similar role in future global crisis. The development of specific vaccines against the Sars-CoV-2 virus, the large-scale diffusion of distance learning methods mediated by Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), and the rapid adoption of emergency cash transfer programs through a mobile registration app are examples of the massive and everyday character of the innovations adopted. They also suggest other characteristics of this movement: the uncertainty about the effects of technology, the urgency of adopting emergency measures, the limited opportunities for inclusive deliberation, the challenge posed to previous regulatory frameworks, the narrative dispute about how to frame the whole process, the stress of decision systems to act cooperatively, among other aspects of the relationship between technology and governance involved on a global scale.

The evaluation was positioned in the last century as an ascending practice in the management of public policies in Western Democracies. In this context, the evaluation was characterized by a strong positivist and elitist epistemological seal, which aimed to prioritize the production of methodologically valid and useful information for the public decision-makers, such as suggested by the Scientificist (Suchman, 1968) and Decisionist (Nioche, 1982; Nioche y Poinsard, 1985; Nioche, 2016) evaluative currents. The Politicizing approach to evaluation (Weiss, 1972) and its two main strands emerged as the antithesis of those trends and it was aligned with the broader debate on the democratic deficit and asymmetry between State and society (Pitkin, 1967; Dahl, 1971; Purcell, 1973). The first one uses political pluralism and epistemological interpretivism bases to argue that the low participation of social actors is due to the scarce contribution of evaluation to democracy, a premise that has led to various methods of participatory evaluation as the democratic one (MacDonald, 1974), centered on use (Patton, 1978), empowering (Fetterman, 1994), collaborative (Cousins ​​and Whitmore, 1998), or deliberative (House and Howet, 2001). The second strand questions the previous focus on the internal sphere of evaluative methods. Thus, it suggests that the weak political contribution of evaluation is the result of its disconnection from the political-institutional environment, which makes it difficult to recognize the plurality of actors, even when applying participatory tools (Greene, 2006; Plottu and Plottu, 2009). Moreover, this second strand highlights the role of evaluation in accountability by validating the coexistence of methods, as well as by indicating that they must include and cover a wide plurality of actors, starting from the actions evaluated, and safeguarding the relationships in its internal orbit as well as in its environment (Stufflebeam and Shinkfield, 1987; Alkin and Christie, 2004; Hanberger, 2009; Chouinard, 2013). On the other hand, the evaluative debate itself proposes to expand its borders by integrating other disciplines, especially those from the Analysis of Public Policies field, due to its explanatory potential in the matter (Jacob and Rothmayr 2009; Højlund, 2014), as demonstrated by the pluralistic (Monnier, 1995; Subirats, 1995), multiple (Majone, 1997) or cognitive resource (Radaelli and Dente 1996) evaluative approaches. This panel aims to deepen the politicizing debate on the evaluation of public policies, from an interdisciplinary and critical perspective that addresses its successes, weaknesses, and challenges. The general premise assumed is that the reinforcement of this approach can favor the contribution given by evaluation to democracy, insofar as it facilitates the exercise of participation rights, incidence, and control of the public by various actors, especially the social ones, traditionally excluded. The theoretical relevance of this debate resides in the need to contrast the premises of the politicizing approach and the evaluation, its refutation, and eventual consolidation as a robust theoretical alternative. Likewise, its methodological relevance lies in analyzing which approach, methods, and evaluative tools help this perspective along. Finally, since the evaluation work has a democratic strengthening potential, the empirical relevance of the panel relates to the contributions of its findings to the field.

In the past few years, policy capacity emerged as a useful conceptual lens in understanding the effectiveness of policy design and delivery (Mukherjee, Coban, and Bali 2021). Defined as “[t]he set of skills and resources – or competences and capabilities – necessary to perform policy functions” (Wu, Ramesh, and Howlett, 2015: 166)” along different dimensions and across multiple levels, the concept of policy capacity has been applied to examine various policy sectors such as foreign policy, education, bank and financial regulation, and climate change policy (see e.g., Saguin and Howlett 2022; Yan and Saguin 2021; Domorenok and Prontera 2021), and to elaborate on different policy functions such as mobilisation for instrument choices (Daugbjerg 2022; Steinebach 2019) or policy integration and coordination (Coban 2021; Maggetti and Trein 2022). With the exception of research in countries such as the Philippines (Saguin, Ramesh, and Howlett 2018), Brazil (Koga et al. 2022; Yan, Sano, and Sumiya 2022), India and China (Bajpai and Chong 2019; Yan and Saguin 2021), Malaysia (Jensen 2019), and Turkey (Coban 2020; 2021), the empirical focus of the policy capacity literature is mostly on the Global North. Policy capacity studies in these contexts have proved the applicability of the concept in policy environments with sub-optimal conditions for effective policymaking, such as intelligence deficits (Ascher 2021) and weak or volatile institutions (Andrews, Pritchett, and Woolcock 2017; Brinks et al. 2020). Further theorizing is needed to encourage more in-depth investigations of policy capacity in developing countries or non-Western contexts similar to Newman et al. (2022) or Koga et al. (2022) who elaborated on the (lack of) peculiarities that call for re-conceptualization of policy capacity. This would undoubtedly constitute an important endeavour of decolonising the field of public policy and administration (e.g., McDonald III et al. 2022). The Global South offers an exciting empirical setting to advance the theorisation of policy capacity in three ways. First, capacity development interventions populate policy reforms in developing countries, allowing us to address a blind spot on the determinants of the varying levels of policy capacity. Second, it permits the identification of the dimensions of policy capacity that are more “critical” in the sequencing of enhancing policy capacity. Third, “political management” of policy capacity has not been well addressed in existing literature (Brenton, Baekkeskov, and Hannah 2022). For that matter, research about populist, authoritarian governments in the Global South can expand our understanding about the loss of rare, fundamental existing capacity in these jurisdictions (Ansell et al. 2021; Bauer et al. 2021; Milhorance 2022). More complete theorization of policy capacity thus warrants a systematic and comparative analysis of the drivers, mechanisms, and political-administrative relations in the Global South (Bertelli et al. 2020). Motivated by the literature gaps highlighted above, we encourage public policy scholars to pay more attention to policy capacity in the Global South, which provides us a fruitful empirical ground not only to contribute to empirical research, but to theorisation of policy capacity. References Andrews, Matt, Lant Pritchett, Michael Woolcock. (2017) Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. New York: Oxford University Press. Ansell, Christopher K. et al. (2021) The loss of capacity in public organizations: A public administration challenge. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 4:1, pages 24-29. Ascher, William. (2021). Coping with intelligence deficits in poverty-alleviation policies in low-income countries. Policy Sciences 54:2, pages 345-370. Bajpai, Kanti, Byron Chong. (2019) India’s foreign policy capacity. Policy Design and Practice 2:2, pages 137-162. Bauer, Michael W. et al. (2021) (eds) Democratic backsliding and public administration: How populists in government transform state bureaucracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bertelli, Anthony M. et al. (2020) An agenda for the study of public administration in developing countries. Governance 33:4, pages 735-748. Brenton, Scott, Erik Baekkeskov, Adam Hannah. (2022) Policy capacity: Evolving theory and missing links. Policy Studies. DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2022.2043266 Brinks, Daniel M. et al. (2020) (eds) The politics of institutional weakness in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coban, M. Kerem. (2020) Compliance forces, domestic policy process, and international regulatory standards: Compliance with Basel III. Business and Politics 22:1, pages 161-195. Coban, M. Kerem. (2021) Coordinating monetary policy and macroprudential policy: Bureaucratic politics, regulatory intermediary, and bank lobbying. Public Administration. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12744 Daugbjerg, Carsten. (2022) Against the odds: How policy capacity can compensate for weak instruments in promoting sustainable food. Policy Sciences 55:3, pages 451-467. Domorenok, Ekaterina, Andrea Prontera. (2021) Governing by enabling in multilevel systems: Capacity building and local climate action in the European Union. JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies 59:6, pages 1475-1494. Jensen, Olivia. (2019). Designing effective water policy: Capacity and effectiveness of reforms in developing countries. Policy and Society 38:1, pages 77-95. Kim, Sojeong, Adam M. Wellstead, Tanya Heikkila. (2022) Policy capacity and rise of data-based policy innovation labs. Review of Policy Research. DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12494 Koga, Natalia et al. (2022) Analysing the information sources Brazilian bureaucrats use as evidence in everyday policymaking. Policy & Politics 50:4, pages 483-506. Maggetti, Martino, Philipp Trein. (2022) Policy integration, problem-solving, and the coronavirus disease crisis: Lessons for policy design. Policy and Society 41:1, pages 53-67. McDonald, B. D., Jeremy L. Hall, Janine O'Flynn, Sandra van Thiel. (2022) The future of public administration research: An editor's perspective. Public Administration 100:1, pages, 59– 71. Milhorance, Carolina. (2022) Policy dismantling and democratic regression in Brazil under Bolsonaro: Coalition politics, ideas, and underlying discourses. Review of Policy Research. DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12502 Mukherjee, Ishani, M. Kerem Coban, Azad S. Bali. (2021) Policy capacities and effective policy design: A review. Policy Sciences 54:2, pages 243-268. Newman, Joshua, Emi Patmisari, Ida Widianingsih. (2022) Policy analytical capacity and" Eastern" styles of policy analysis: evidence from West Java Province, Indonesia. Policy Sciences 55:3, pages 469-485. Saguin, Kidjie, M. Ramesh, Michael Howlett. (2018) Policy work and capacities in a developing country: Evidence from the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 40:1, pages 1-22. Steinebach, Yves. (2019) Instrument choice, implementation structures, and the effectiveness of environmental policies: A cross-national analysis. Regulation & Governance 16:1, pages 225-242. Yan, Yifei, Kidjie Saguin. (2021) Policy capacity matters for capacity development: Comparing teacher in-service training and career advancement in basic education systems in India and China. International Review of Administrative Sciences 87:2, pages 294-310. Yan, Yifei, Hironobu Sano, Lilia A. Sumiya. (2022) Policy capacity matters for education system reforms: A comparative study of two Brazilian states. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2022.2110472 Xu, Xun, M. Ramesh, Michael Howlett. (2015) Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society 34:3-4, pages 165-171.

The general objective of the onsite panel would be to explore how lessons learned from the ongoing Ukrainian displacement crisis can factor into the theoretical debate regarding the overhaul of the international refugees system. For decades, the prevailing assumption in academic as well as policy circles have been that refugees are an exclusively humanitarian subject. However, in 2017 Alexander Betts and Paul Collier proposed a development-based approach towards refugees that would supersede the prevailing ‘humanitarianism’. Their model proposes setting up safe havens in countries of the developing world in the close proximity of conflict zones. In the proposed havens market-based solutions would be deployed to promote the economic autonomy and self-reliance of refugees. The central research questions of the panel would be: Can we theorize a development-based model for the Ukrainian displacement crisis? Can such a model be mapped out based on existing policy solutions? The scientific relevance of exploring these research questions stems from the uniqueness of the Ukrainian displacement crisis: the conflict that people are fleeing is unfolding in the hearth of Europe and not in the developing world. Consequently, previously theorized policy models cannot be applicable to this crisis without revision because of the vastly different socio-economic situation of Ukraine. For example, any model would have to take into consideration the quintessential role of local NGOs as well as the existence of a strong civil society in the ongoing crisis. A comparative analysis of European countries’ as well as the EUs response to the ongoing Ukrainian refugee crisis can be used with the aim of identifying best policy practices around the continent that in turn could be incorporated into a development-based model. The model would have to look at two distinct groups of displaced people simultaneously: the refugees in the EU, and the IDPs in Ukraine. Since the start of the Russian invasion, more than 7,7 million Ukrainians refugees were recorded across Europe, causing the biggest displacement crisis on the continent since the end of the Second World War. The EU for the first time initiated the Temporary Protection Directive which granted citizens and legal residents of Ukraine residency status for up to three years without having to go through the lengthy and complex asylum procedure. The directive originally entered into force in 2001 following the refugee crisis in Kosovo and is meant to tackle the mass influx of non-EU asylum seekers. So far, around 4,4 million Ukrainians registered for temporary protection inside the EU. At the same time, more than 6 million Ukrainians are displaced inside the country. As a result of the continuing assault on energy infrastructure, Ukraine has been facing significant outages, internet disruptions, prompting calls from Ukraine’s government to save energy by limiting the usage of home appliances. Kyiv was forced to suspend electricity export to the EU to stabilize its own system. All in all, Russia’s methodical bombardment of Ukrainian power and heat-generating infrastructure may force a significant number of IDPs to cross international borders and become refugees in Europe. With this recent escalation, a cease of hostilities in the near future seems even more remote. Consequently, for a large portion of Ukrainian refugees the temporary protection granted by EU countries might not be so temporary. All in all, it seems likely that a considerable percentage of refugees will remain in the EU for an extended period of time. This in turn necessitates a transition from short-term, crisis management policies to more long-term approaches – that is, shifting away from ‘humanitarianism’ and towards a development-based framework. The expansion of existing support capacities and infrastructure is necessary both at the EU as well as at the member-state level. Development-based policy solutions needs to be identified and implemented for the long-term integration of Ukrainian refugees into host societies. In order to better anticipate future flows from Ukraine instead of ad-hoc, member-state level initiatives, a unified European approach has to be devised to aid IDPs. At a theoretical level the situation of IDPs could be analogues to the situation of refugees in haven countries in the developing world (Jordan, Lebanon etc.) That is, both of the groups remain close to the conflict zone, and the choice of onward migration closely correlates with socio-economic participation and autonomy. Consequently, a development-based model would also have to draw from concerted EU policies that aim to boost the resilience of Western Ukraine. Apart from market-based solutions, local Ukrainian NGOs would have to have a central role in a development-based model that aims to prevent a second massive refugee flow into the EU. Finally, the unfolding energy crises, as well as the United States’ role – as one of the major donors – in tackling the refugee crisis would have to be factored into the model as well.

Justification: Alcohol, drug, and tobacco (ADT) use has devastating health, social, and economic consequences (Cartwright, 2008; Goodchild, 2018; Nosrati et al., 2019). ADT use disorders are among the leading causes of death and disability in people aged 15-49 in high-income countries (. Most notably, ADT use is the major risk factor for death and disability among this age and income/geographic group (GBD, 2019). As ADT policies enshrine principles and practices associated with these substances' production, distribution, possession, and use, jurisdictions can act through multiple institutional mechanisms (Rogeberg, 2018). However, these mechanisms can sometimes complement, contradict, or not recognize each other's influences or contributions. In short, while harms associated with using ADT may demand an all-encompassing public health approach, questions regarding the dialogues between policies regulating these substances, where other approaches interject, remain notably absent At least two sources influence policies' shapes and trajectories in these three realms across jurisdictions. On the one hand, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended multiple policies to curb alcohol- and tobacco-related harms. These interventions include common elements, such as tax and price increases, reduction of availability, enforcement of advertising, promotion, and sponsorship bans (WHO, 2017). On the other, the scenario for drug policy reflects more clearly the tensions between efforts to prohibit or regulate drug supply and use (Bewley & Taylor, 2012; Hall, 2018) For sixty years, the application of criminal law to control and punish people who use illicit drugs (PWUD) and those linked to illegal markets has been at the center of prohibitionist drug policies 9. These policies have resulted in an overrepresentation of PWUD among the prison population, with few impacts on reducing the affordability or use of illicit drugs or increasing their age of initiation (Cerda et al., 2021; Quinlan, 2015). Furthermore, prohibitionism has been associated with significant social and health costs, such as organized crime-related violence or outbreaks of infectious diseases among PWUD and prison populations (Csete, 2016). However, the most current United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) recommendations for drug control emphasize a public health, rights-based and evidence-based approach to preventing and treating problems associated with drug use (Cerda et al., 2021). Indeed, jurisdictions may decide to introduce strict regulations on alcohol consumption but may be permissive regarding tobacco use (i.e., Morocco). Other jurisdictions may prefer decriminalizing drug consumption but imposing highly restrictive tobacco regulations (i.e., Portugal or Canada). In this sense, it is essential to highlight how these policies have emerged and subsequently affected health outcomes associated with ADT use. More work is also needed to map how these policies interact with each other as well as what has been influencing their current shapes, to properly measure their “effects” on population's alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. General research question: Our panel is interested in exploring, from an interdisciplinary approach, the following research question: to what extent do ADT policies’ changes over time--considering also mutual influences among policies—affect variations in substance use in the general population and vulnerable populations?

In the aftermath of the Asian economic crises, the post-positivist approaches to policy analysis have been introduced to the region with hopes to addressing problems widely implicated to the attempt of the professional expert-technocrats in addressing public concerns at that time in countries Japan, China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, India, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. However, the alternative policy analysis approaches have been introduced slowly and made some impacts merely at the fringe of the region. These phenomena seem to be different from western countries, where alternative modes of policy analysis have grown up really fast. It can be clearly seen from the increasing number of manuscripts submitted from the western world to Critical Policy Studies journal, whereas the submission from the Asian region is relatively low. The call for a less technocratic and critical orientation of policy studies is thus essential for this region. Generally, progressive movements and schools of thought in the public policy discipline have elevated the exploration of critical directions in policy studies. Critical policy studies have been skeptical towards the mainstream technical-oriented approaches to policy science and underscored the need to revitalize a discursive, interpretive, and participatory-deliberative outlook to rethink public problems and present sound alternatives holistically (Fischer et al., 2015). Since critical policy scholars have vested significant interests in line with these discourses, we can further note that most of the knowledge and lessons exemplified are greatly based on a western context and developed ones. On the other hand, critical policy works in Asia are limited. There are only a few works as we observed, for example, those that pay more particular attention to the role of social norms (e.g., Chamchong, 2020), the importance of democratic deliberation (e.g., Sacramento & Boossabong, 2021), the critique of political construction of policy reality in the face of post-truth politics (e.g., Boossabong & Chamchong, 2021), and the possibility of meaningful participation in the authoritarian country (e.g., Li & He, 2016). Nonetheless, apart from the given examples, there might be some other relevant and interesting lessons, lenses, and perspectives that critical scholars too can unravel from a non-western experience like Asia. This panel on “Critical Policy Studies in Asia: Approaches and Challenges” aims to engage in a productive discussion about existing and emerging critical policy studies in the Asian region. Moreover, the panel wishes to explore lessons, novel lenses, and perspectives to critical policy studies based on Asian contextualities, culture, and norms; to understand Asian approaches and challenges in critical policy studies; and to (re)create a common and regional conceptual understanding of critical policy studies in Asia. It is acknowledged that western critical policy scholars have well established and founded the approach as an alternative yet progressive school of thought in public policy. However, some lessons and lenses need to be reiterated in the context of Asia as complementary to the existing paradigm in critical policy studies. Significant to the development of the progressive movement, the Asian context too may supplement the gaps overlooked or less tackled in the existing literature and lessons in critical policy studies. References: Boossabong, P., & Chamchong, P. (2021). Public policy in the face of post-truth politics and the role of deliberation. Critical Policy Studies, 15(1), 107-124. Chamchong, P. (2020). How cultural and organizational conditions impact on policy entrepreneurship: evidence from Thailand. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 13(1), 79-93. Fischer, F., Torgerson, D., Durnová, A., & Orsini, M. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of critical policy studies. Edward Elgar Publishing. Li, Y., & He, J. (2016). Exploring deliberative policy analysis in an authoritarian country. Critical Policy Studies, 10(2), 235-246. Sacramento, N. J. J. E., & Boossabong, P. (2021). Technocratic and deliberative nexus in policy analysis: Learning from smart city planning in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 1-17.

Public policy scholars from across the epistemological spectrum are beginning to take stock of the role of emotion as an integral part of interaction and cognitive perception of the world around us. While mainstream approaches to public policy see in emotions elements shaping collective action and impacting policy processes, interpretive and post-structural approaches view emotions as meaningful practices or discourses, shaping our understanding of policies and related processes and constituting policy problems and subjectivities. This panel (and sections) aims to explore the diverse approaches to studying emotions and emotional discourse in public policy and to encourage constructive dialogue between and across perspectives. In current public debates around policy measures, policy instruments, or policy controversies, it appears that some emotions are presented and accepted as legitimate for some people or events. Still, when they appear in other contexts, they are seen as disqualifying. Especially in political negotiations, emotions are displaced and seen as irrelevant or unacceptable to a policy solution and instrument because it is too chaotic, naive, subjective, and not grounded in a systematic inquiry. This dynamic of the legitimacy of emotions, while it may seem legitimate in times of pandemic management, points to the need to pay attention to the specific context in which emotions are used or presented. In a nutshell, emotions are important for policies since they constitute the context and content of issues to be regulated and how this content is communicated. The specific boundaries of emotionality can challenge the policy situation because they point to what is acceptable and seen as legitimate in a given situation: positive and negative emotions are discursive labels and the way these labels are embedded in the larger context impacts who has a say in politics, what kind of knowledge is accepted, and where this knowledge needs to be situated with policy actors.

We are living in a time the environmental crisis is getting worse, and climate change has turned to be climate emergency that threatens catastrophe. As Fischer (2017) shows in “Climate Crisis and the Democratic Prospect”, democracy and participation will be in jeopardy. Technocratic politics will be the dominant approach to political elites. However, there has to be a role for the local that promotes a governance system that focuses on matters concerning the practical orientation of the bottom-up participation by communities as a deliberative exercise able to engage ordinary people as well as officials in the solution (Fung & Wright, 2003). The environmental belief that criticizes market environmentalism has always been a key value of the movement, especially the one that typically involves explicit struggles against inequalities by civil organizations. This is written into sustainable development documents but neglected in practice. Prominent examples are also found in mainstream sustainable development discourses that depoliticize and neglect the foundations of justice and sustainability (Baker, 2022). In contrast, this hybrid panel welcomes real-world governance practices that promote meaningful participation to challenge the existing unjust barriers and pave the way toward sustainability. Critical policy researchers and practitioners are encouraged to share the attempt to go beyond the promotion of network governance that usually turns out to be a metaphor (Dowding, 1995) or an empty signifier (Offe, 2009). The panel looks for lessons for sustainable governance that confronts the rise of techno-authoritarian control and the neo-liberal state. As such, it seeks practices that promote democratic deliberation focused on more inclusive and emancipatory conceptions of sustainability (Hammond & Smith, 2022). References: Baker, S. 2022. “Sustainable Development: Between Reformist Change and Radical Transformation”. In Bornemann, B., Knappe, H. & Nanz, P., eds. Routledge Handbook of Democracy and Sustainability. London: Routledge. Dowding, K. 1995. Model or Metaphor?: A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach. Political Studies, 3(1): 136-158. Fischer, F. 2017. Climate crisis and ecological democracy: Participatory governance in sustainable communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fung, A., & Wright, O. (2003). Deepening Democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. New York: Verso. Hammond, M. & Smith, G. 2022. “Deliberation and Sustainability”. In Bornemann, B., Knappe, H. & Nanz, P., eds. Routledge Handbook of Democracy and Sustainability. London: Routledge. Offe, C. 2009. Governance: An ‘Empty Signifier’? Constellations, 16(4): 550–562.

In a situation of enduring public sector austerity and New Public Management hypes on the one hand, and a confluence of crises on the other hand, from COVID-19 and energy shortages to climate change and environmental degradation, demands for accelerating the digital transformation of government and public administration are mounting. Against this backdrop, public sector actors vest artificial intelligence technologies (AITs), automated decision making (ADM) based on algorithms, and other data-intensive policy strategies with high-flying promises of increased accuracy, speed, precision and quality in designing and delivering public services, from welfare to security (Veale and Brass 2019). The European Commission, for example, justifies its massive investments for AITs in health care and transportation as a matter of both green growth and the cost-effectiveness of public interventions (European Commission 2018). Public uses include chat bots at user interfaces with public services, automated case work to detect social security or tax fraud, smart diagnostics and ‘nudging’ in healthcare, predictive policing, biometric identification or dialect recognition at the ‘smart’ border or in the processing of asylum claims (Henman 2020; Jeandesboz 2021; Kaufmann, Egbert, and Leese 2019; Prainsack 2020). Beyond sector-specific applications, policies of establishing integrated digital information systems on national or European level, such as national health spaces (Hoeyer 2019, Aula 2019), the European Health Data Space (European Commission 2022), or national twin systems of public infrastructures (Braun, Kropp, Boeva forthcoming), promise to unlock social, economic and scientific value in mutually beneficial ways. Thus, public uses of AI, big data, and data-driven automation arguably feature a ramped-up version of the classical modern idea of a "technological fix" for complex social issues, promising more profound and far-reaching solutions to a broader range of problems, including those that may not even have been specified today and that data-based prediction can identify. This techno-solutionism also comes with demands for more and better data, investment in infrastructure, and public-private partnerships for tech development and deployment. At the same time, critical policy studies and science and technology studies have long questioned such hyper-modernist beliefs and promises and pointed to their potentially catastrophic effects (Scott 1998). Criticism refers to the underestimation or denial of technical flaws; to illegal and discriminatory effects of using big data-based technology in the public sector – from the Australian robodebt scandal to exam grade predictions during the COVID pandemic in British secondary schools both of which disproportionately penalized minority and black populations –; but also the detrimental implications for the rule of law and democratic governance (often with a focus on how technology jeapardizes normative precepts such as privacy, non-discrimination, or explicability and transparency of decisions) (overview of the debate in Paul 2022; Paul, Carmel and Cobbe forthcoming). Work on surveillance capitalism (Zuboff 2019) and the transformation of statehood vis-à-vis highly concentrated corporate power of big tech players (Fourcade and Gordon 2020; Pistor 2020) warns against the loss of public sector sovereignty and decline of democratic governance. Against this backdrop of concurring techno-solutionist utopias and dystopias, scholarly work on AITs and data-based policy solutions has slowly emerged over the past 2-3 years. The emerging field is dominated by ethicists' and legal scholars' articulations of concrete regulatory principles and design standards to mitigate the harmful effects (for a large debate: Yeung 2019), or (to a lesser extent) rational choice propositions of proportionate governance frameworks which could mitigate risks while enabling technological innovation (e.g. Krafft et al. 2021). However, both the applied ethics and the rational choice take on AITs and data-intensive public decision-making fail to capture the politics of regulating and inserting these technologies in the public sector. So far, less systematic attention is paid to the ongoing political struggles over developing, procuring and deploying AITs and data-intensive applications in the public sector, including to emergent approaches to regulating them (but see: Justo-Hanani 2022). We are yet to establish systematic - including comparative - insights on how the development and deployment of AIT and data-based approaches in government and policymaking interact with the ways policymaking is understood, organized, and performed by different actors and in different contexts, and how the insertion of data-intensive tech applications transform the relationships between the public sector, citizens, and the private sector. To explore the politics of techno-solutionism in this sense, this panel asks three related questions: 1) How do techno-solutionist framings of AITs and data-intensive policies emerge in different contexts? How are they mobilized and contested, by whom, and on which basis? 2) How are AITs and data-intensive forms of decision-making appropriated in specific contexts and how does such translation work vary by sector, country, agency etc.? 3) How do dominant interpretations of AITs and data-intense decision-making in the public sector interact with issues of digital sovereignty, data justice, but also global environmental justice?

There is a serious gap between the policy problems faced by 21st century cities and their proposed solutions, which are often small-scale, siloed and unsustainable. Paradoxically, as cities face the pressures of poverty, unemployment, social and physical infrastructure degradation, and pollution, they are being lauded by other scales of government for their resilience and innovation in solving wicked policy problems. And on top of all of that, they were confronted with the deadly impacts of COVID-19. Critical urban theory and study, situated in the fields of urban geography and politics and exemplified in the seminal texts Cities for People, Not for Profit: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City (Brenner et al, 2012) and Critical Urban Studies: New Directions (Davies and Imbroscio, 2010) highlight the failures and inadequacies of neoliberal urban policy and austerity programs characteristic of advanced capitalism. But what is to be done about it? Are there opportunities for progressive and transformational policy as suggested by new municipalism (Comú 2019, Thompson 2019)? Or do cities today lack progressive politics, visions, agendas, revenue sources, governance processes, implementation protocols, and enforcement mechanisms to address growing social, political, and economic problems (Joy and Vogel 2021, 2022). The tension between problems, solutions, and expectations in status quo urban policy making begs the question: is there a progressive policy alternative for cities that promotes equity, democracy, sustainability, and justice? It is now time for scholars to move beyond critiques of neoliberalism to offer a better future for those who live and work in the city. The objective of this panel on Critical Urban Policy is to examine how policy theory and research can support this agenda (Joy and Vogel 2022). We anticipate that the panel will explore, through both conceptual and empirical analyses, how policy theory and research can contribute insight on:● the values and principles that define progressive urban policy;● the tactics progressive leadership, movements, and coalitions can use to bring progressive alternatives onto the policy agenda;● the design of progressive policy visions, agendas, and action plans;● the institutional arrangements required to implement, anchor and nurture a progressive city; and● how we might evaluate progressive city policy and engage in ongoing learning and critique.

One of the epistemological cornerstones in critical policy studies is that the production of scientific knowledge is not neutral (Fischer, 1980, 1998; Yanow, 1996; Dryzek, 2010). The recognition of this non-neutrality has led scholars of policy as well as of science and technology to investigate the ideational and material foundations of knowledge claims, and the processes through which knowledge is articulated, becomes “neutralized”, institutionalized through policymaking, but also contested (in short: the politics of knowledge generation in relation to policy and governance). This discussion was arguably well located on the stage of an anti-positivist turn in European humanities and social science between the 1960s and 1980s, including lastingly influential reflections by scholars such as Jürgen Habermas, Bruno Latour, or Gilles Deleuze. And it produced a wealth of scholarly engagement across the globe. This program only gained broader interpretive possibilities, however, when crossing with other analytical paths opened by the philosopher Immanuel Wallerstein, but also Latin American developmentalism (e.g., Furtado, Prebich, Ramos, Santos). These understand the world as an articulated and oppressive system of economies and dependencies which is hierarchically structured around claims to superior knowledge, experiences, and socio-economic but also cultural development. This is the core of decolonial studies proposal. The Peruvian Aníbal Quijano (1992) proposed the concept of coloniality as the other (darker) side of the modernity project. Coloniality established itself as a political, economic, cultural, and epistemological structure that sustains the capitalist “modernization” through the (more or less visible) subordination, exploitation, and eradication of peoples outside the European metropolises (Bhambra, 2021). Crucial part of the decolonial program has been the critical exploration of epistemological coloniality, offering a more radical hook for discussions of non-neutrality in knowledge production than more established approaches to critical policy studies. From this perspective, epistemological universalism and methodological nationalisms are often embedded even within the more critical conceptual, analytical, and methodological frames (albeit to different degrees). This marginalizes the rationalities, experiences, voices, ways of living, concepts and interpretive frames, feelings, and bodies of people elsewhere. Putting them in and letting them speak from their own perspectives would be a more radical interpretation of the non-neutrality of knowledge in policy studies. A decolonial stance requires policy scholars to critically reflect upon (often more hidden) forms of epistemological universalism, Euro- and Western-centrism and methodological nationalism operating within our own knowledge production, as well as the extent to which this reproduces subordination of alternative epistemologies. This includes key concepts, heuristics, and analytical units in policy studies, including the Weberian “state” or “ideal type” which have universalized a specific historiography of knowledge production in ways that hide its antisemitic, racist and colonial intellectual origins (Bhambra and Holmwood, 2019). So how we can decolonize the discussion on non-neutrality within (critical) policy studies? What would it mean to decolonize (critical) policy studies as a discipline and form of knowledge production? How can existing concepts, theoretical frameworks, and methodologies in policy studies, but also ideas about the role of policy analysts in the socio-political world, be revisited from a decolonial perspective?

We live in an era of global megatrends, defined by the European Commission as 14 long-term driving forces that are observable now and will most likely have significant influence on the future of our planet (Joint Research Centre, 2022). These forces are: 1) diversifying inequalities; 2) increasing significance of migration; 3) aggravating resource scarcity; 4) increasing influence of new governing systems; 5) continuing urbanization; 6) increasing demographic imbalances; 7) climate change and environmental degradation; 8) diversification of education and learning; 9) changing nature of work; 10) accelerating technological change and hyperconnectivity; 11) growing consumerism; 12) expanding influence of east and south; 13) changing security paradigm; and 14) shiſting health challenges. Governing such megatrends will involve deep government interventions in several policy domains including resource management, sustainable urban development, population ageing, migration, agri-food transition, climate change, ecological transition, labor market, technological change, security, and health. Many of these policy interventions will require massive investments in megaprojects, i.e. large-scale ventures that typically cost $1 billion or more, take many years to develop and build, involve multiple public and private stakeholders, and impact millions of people (Flyvbjerg, 2017). Megaprojects include special economic zones, public buildings, power plants, dams, airports, seaports, bridges, highways, tunnels, railways, wastewater projects, oil and natural gas extraction projects, aerospace projects, weapons systems, information technology systems, and large-scale high-cost initiatives in scientific research. Since the Covid-19 outbreak, strategic long-term and large-scale policy interventions have even become more important (Clement et al., 2022). Indeed, as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the European Union has made available a 2021–2027 long-term budget of €1.8 trillion to fund megaprojects with ecological and digital applications. Similarly, in the US a $1.9 trillion Covid relief plan is on the way and China has planned to expedite the rollout of 102 megaprojects for the 2021-25 period. Megatrends and related megaprojects can be defined as wicked policy fields marked by interdependence, complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity, risk, and conflict. These are indeed policy fields populated by many governmental and non-governmental stakeholders holding different interests, preferences, attitudes, visions, imaginaries, cultures, and logics of collective action (Esposito et al., 2022). In bringing together scholarship in management, public administration, and political science, the aim of this panel is to explore how policy actors make sense of long-term and large-scale policy endeavors and strategically interact with the institutional environment to govern them (Esposito et al., 2021). In particular, the panel points to the usefulness of adopting (a combination of) discursive and institutional perspectives. Whereas embracing discursive perspectives means recognizing the contestability and argumentative dimension of the great transformations linked to megatrends and megaprojects (Fischer and Forester, 1993; Wagenaar, 2011), adopting institutional perspectives means emphasizing the constraining effects of structures on policy actors as well as the way through which the latter purposefully alter the institutional context to govern megatrends and megaprojects (Sydow and Söderlund, 2022). References Clement J, Esposito G and Crutzen N (2022) Municipal Pathways in Response to COVID-19: A Strategic Management Perspective on Local Public Administration Resilience. Administration & Society: 009539972211003. DOI: 10.1177/00953997221100382. Esposito G, Nelson T, Ferlie E, et al. (2021) The institutional shaping of global megaprojects: The case of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway. International Journal of Project Management 39(6): 658–671. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.06.001. Esposito G, Terlizzi A and Crutzen N (2022) Policy narratives and megaprojects: the case of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway. Public Management Review 24(1): 55–79. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1795230. Fischer F and Forester J (eds) (1993) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: Duke University Press. Flyvbjerg B (ed.) (2017) The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joint Research Centre (2022) The Megatrends Hub. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/tool/megatrends-hub_en. Sydow J and Söderlund J (2022) Organizing Complex Projects from Neo-institutional Perspectives. In: Winch G, Brunet M, and Cao D (eds) Research Handbook on Complex Project Organizing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Wagenaar H (2011) Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.

Whether concerning the siting of wind turbine parks, solar panel estates, and shelters for refugees, or governmental strategies to deal with the covid-19 pandemic, public policies generate contentious responses from the wider public. While policy conflicts prevail, policy scholars and political scientists mostly treat policy conflict as a background concept (Weible and Heikkila 2017). However, there is a recent upsurge in scholarly work coming from different approaches (Weible and Heikkila 2017, Wolf and Van Dooren, 2018, Laws and Forester 2015, Verhoeven and Metze 2022). Various authors have started to theorize the dynamics at play in conflicts. For example, Weible and Heikkila (2017) theorize intensity of policy conflicts, Wolf (2021) and Wolf and van Dooren (2017, 2018) study how evidence, procedural choices and stereotyped labels feed into escalation processes, while Verhoeven and Metze (2022) look into how emotional storylines play a role in the escalation of policy conflicts. Even so, static approaches that for instance seek to explain conflict by looking into what frames, beliefs, or values collide, dominate. Therefore, our knowledge of how policy conflicts develop and what this means for working through conflict remains relatively scant. We are interested, not so much in explaining conflict through collision, but in understanding how the collision develops and the ensuing conflict plays out. To develop dynamic explanations of conflict, we can build on recent work that looks at (strategic) interactions between actors involved in policy conflicts (Verhoeven et al. 2022, Verhoeven 2020, Wolf and van Dooren 2017, Metze and Dodge 2016, Dodge and Metze 2017, Laws and Forester 2015, Verloo 2015). These (strategic) interactions contain many elements that contribute to escalation, stalemate or de-escalation of policy conflicts. To deepen knowledge of policy conflict dynamics, it seems productive to bring together scholars from mainstream public policy studies and interpretative policy studies to engage in a productive dialogue as called for by Durnova and Weible (2020). We believe that such a productive dialogue can contribute to the development of an analytic vocabulary that allows for a richer understanding of the dynamics of policy conflicts and the elements that influence these dynamics. Such a dialogue can also contribute to exchanges on research techniques and on integrative research. To summarize, the aims of this panel are twofold:1) Develop dynamic explanations to understand how policy conflicts evolve and which elements play a role in these processes2) Bring together scholars from different approaches to create an analytic vocabulary that allows for a richer understanding of policy conflict dynamics Guided by these aims, we want to address three overarching questions:1) How can we understand the (strategic) interactions of actors involved in policy conflicts over time?2) Which elements influence these (strategic) interactions? 3) What kind of analytical vocabulary can we develop to capture such (strategic) interactions and the elements that influence them? LiteratureDodge, J., and Metze, T. (2017). Hydraulic fracturing as an interpretive policy problem: Lessons on energy controversies in Europe and the U.S.A. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(1), 1–13.Durnova, A., and Weible, C. (2020). Tempest in a teapot? Towards new collaborations between mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies. Policy Sciences, 53(3), 571–588.Laws, D. & J. Forester (2015). Conflict, improvisation, governance. Street level practices for urban democracy. New York: Routledge.Metze, T., and Dodge, J. (2016). Dynamic discourse coalitions on hydro-fracking in Europe and the United States. Environmental Communication, 10(3), 1–15.Verhoeven, I. (2020). Contentious governance around climate change measures in the Netherlands. Environmental Politics, 30(3), 376-398.Verhoeven, I. and Metze, T., (2022). Heated policy: policy actors’ emotional storylines and conflict escalation, Policy Sciences, 55, 223-237. Verhoeven, I., Spruit, S., Van de Grift, E., and Cuppen, E. (2022). Contentious governance of wind energy planning: strategic dilemmas in collaborative resistance by local governments and citizen action groups, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.2023354Verloo, N. (2015). Negotiating urban conflict: conflicts as opportunity for urban democracy. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Weible, C. M., and Heikkila, T. (2017). Policy conflict framework. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 23- 40. Wolf, E. E. A., and Van Dooren, W. (2017). How policies become contested: A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 449-468.Wolf, E. E., and Van Dooren, W. (2018). Conflict reconsidered: The boomerang effect of depoliticization in the policy process. Public Administration, 96(2), 286-301.Wolf, Eva Elizabeth Anne (2021). Dismissing the “vocal minority”: How policy conflict escalates when policymakers label resisting citizens. Policy Studies Journal, 49(2), 640- 663.

Climate change is recognized as a large-scale issue resolved mainly through global or national policy initiatives. However, little research has been done to evaluate local climate change policies and local policy initiatives. In rural areas, changing temperature profiles are responsible for increasing rainfall variability and water scarcity, shifting cropping patterns or impacting natural resource-based livelihoods. In urban areas, climatic risks and increasing extreme events affect health and well-being of local citizens. Across the globe, local governments are acting in their local areas with different partners and local communities to combat the negative impacts of climate change and to deliver carbon goals. Cities play increasingly recognised roles in global climate change responses: as change laboratories, spaces of opportunity, and as administrative and economic hubs that concentrate human and financial resources and needs (Sareen & Waagsaether 2022). On the other hand, with respect to rural environment, the climate change opens debates on land ownership, decolonialization, soil degradation and migration (Dhillon 2018). In our panel, we react on the “calling for a turn towards municipal pragmatism” (Barnett et al 2020) which is critically open towards different forms of knowledge, adopts a retroductive approach to interventions in local contexts, and draws attention to the bottom-up politics of local actors. This includes for example studies on local governance of austerity (Davies et al. 2020) or critical explorations of community empowerment (Richardson, Durose, and Dean 2019; Willett and Cruxon 2019). New understandings of local political practice and agency, scales and spatial dynamics, and communities, have come to be relevant also in discussions of how we account for the transformation of the ‘local’ in the context of climate change. The panel will explore what is the role of local governments in combating climate change, what are possibilities and limits for bottom-up policy-making in context of climate change, what is the role of different expertise at the local level, how we can foster a dialogue between different expertise, and how emotions such as belonging, sense of community or fear might affect local climate policies. The panel is intended to critically examine local climate policies, explore local and global boundaries in policy-making and map interplays between macro and micro policies. References: Barnett, N., Griggs, S., & Sullivan, H. (2020). The Power of Now. Reimagining the Future of Local Government Through Studies of Actually Existing Practice. Local Government Studies, 46(4), 505-523. Davies, J. S., Bua, A., Cortina-Oriol, M., & Thompson, E. (2020). Why is austerity governable? A Gramscian urban regime analysis of Leicester, UK. Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(1), 56-74.Dhillon, J. (2018). Introduction: Indigenous resurgence, decolonization, and movements for environmental justice. Environment and Society, 9(1), 1-5. Richardson, L., Durose, C., & Dean, R. J. (2019). Why decentralize decision making? English local actors' viewpoints. Governance, 32(1), 159-176.Sareen, S., & Waagsaether, K. L. (2022). New municipalism and the governance of urban transitions to sustainability. Urban Studies, Online first. Willett, J., & Cruxon, J. (2019). Towards a participatory representative democracy? UK Parish councils and community engagement. British Politics, 14(3), 311-327.

Public policy making and the underlying politics that shape it are undergoing broad and deep changes. These changes are undergirded by various societal, economic and political shifts that are often in contradiction with each other, such as greater demands for economic and racial justice alongside heightened ultra-conservative political movements, and greater demands to address environmental issues and transition to more sustainable societies alongside efforts to shield radical free market principles that create intensive environmental destruction, among others. Amidst these deeply unsettling changes, all sorts of policy conflicts emerge. In the current age, more and more attention has been given to address these changes in ways that are principled, for example, more just, sustainable and/or transformative of political and economic systems (Chambers 2022). Yet, the contradictory shifts raise questions about the meaning of such principles as justice, sustainability and transformation, according to whom these principles are or should be defined (Stone 1989), and about the ways those involved and affected by societal transformations put forward their understandings of these principles. Particularly in times of policy conflicts, a re-politization of previously (seemingly) settled issues often takes place, as well as the (re)-enactment of (new, refashioned or old) normative principles in daily policy practices for a range of actors differently situated in the political arena of policy making. This panel seeks to create a collective conversation about how all sorts of policy actors use principles (such as justice, fairness, inclusivity, biodiversity, sustainability and so on) in policy conflicts to address these broad and deep societal changes. We are specifically interested in the ways in which policy actors might engaged in “principled engagement” – what we are defining as the enactment of policy principles, which are generally but not always explicitly articulated, in policy action – in order to intervene in policy conflicts and change policy to address specific policy problems.

As evidence of climate change and its devastating effects – from disastrous flooding and large-scale wildfires, to harvest failure, biodiversity breakdown and forced migration – accumulates, so do calls on scholars to rethink their roles as professionals and global citizens. Exemplary is the intense discussion of a recent initiative on the regulation listserv by Julien Etienne earlier this year. Etienne had asked regulation scholars to “drop our tools” and rethink our scholarly assumptions about a stable future, our concepts and questions, our teaching approaches, but also our interaction with regulators and society. Beyond promoting existing social movements and networks which operate in this emerging science-political sphere (e.g., Faculty for a Future, Scientist Rebellion), the discussion raised important questions for the policy studies community: (1) How suitable are our existing conceptual, methodological and analytical tools in policy studies to explore climate emergency, its regulation and governance, and its implications for global democracy and justice? (2) How can we direct research projects, programs and the discipline at large to address the global warming challenges? What are the key questions and areas of investigation that urgently need more, and more systematic attention? (3) How can we teach policy studies, training students to critically analyse the role of policymaking in countering existential threats to the planet and to develop effective and inclusive solutions? (4) How can policy scholars conceptualize and enact their future role vis-à-vis climate emergency? To what extent should this role go beyond knowledge brokerage and include civil disobedience and political activism? Through discussing these questions from different strands within and beyond policy studies, the roundtable wants to provide a collective moment of stock-taking and reflection. Much of critical discussion and action is still taking place in separate communities and places, and have yet to become focused in broader public policy debates. Critical Policy Studies is encouraging debate on how to link fragmented academic and public debates, and to bring key insights and contributions related to the climate crisis to the center of public policy as discipline and practice. We call for statements of interest to speak to these questions in a roundtable format. The statement should include an outline of the applicant’s answers to the above questions and/or their arguments about the future of policy studies vis-à-vis the climate emergency. The Roundtable will take place in hybrid format. Confirmed participants include Dr. Timmons Roberts of The climate Social Science Network at Brown University.

Some researchers of lobbying frame the practice as an expression of the restructuring of political power in liberal democratic governance. This is to say that the policy advocacy which lobbying entails, is predominantly an expression of corporate “business activism”. However, lobbying is also undertaken by public interest organizations. The question is, are these heard equally by government decision-makers? The lobbying arm of business encompasses a heterodox community of organizations including industry association, inter-sectoral business councils, chambers of commerce, think tanks, government relations firms, law and consultancy firms, and government relations units within corporations. These organizations provide the platform for lobbying activities seeking to engage with the government policy advisory system and thereby inform and shape public policy in the interest, general or specific, of business. In this sense “corporate power reaches beyond the economy” and projects itself “into civil and political society”. Corporate lobbying, as a practice, utilizes knowledge of the political system and the policy process with access to those with the power to make decisions. And there is a tension raised as the political influence of lobbying professionals, who work in the service of particular interests, as opposed to the public interest, may run contrary to the democratic accountability which ought to be foundational to the practice of democracy. This panel seeks to explore lobbying as a distinct mode of policy advocacy and assess the nature and organization of the practice, alongside its impact not only upon the policy agenda but of democracy itself. Case studies as well as comparative approaches are encouraged. Key research questions include but are not limited to: 1) What is the composition of the lobbying industry in a given country or set of countries?; 2) Who are the lobbyists? 3) What is their professional/career background?; 3) Who do lobbyists work for, what are their specific goals, and what tools and resources do they use? The scientific relevance of this panel encompasses several key points. First, the central concern respecting lobbying is the extent to which it amplifies pre-existing power relations in society and further serves to concentrate the power to shape public policy with narrow business interests. Assessing this through case studies, empirical analysis through surveys, key informant interviews with government and lobby industry professionals will contribute to our understanding of this opaque and understudied dimension of the policy process. Second, identifying the ‘value proposition’ of the professional lobbyist, is it their expert knowledge of specific policy files or issues, or their political/bureaucratic networks which makes them valuable in advocacy? Third, is it possible to discern a hierarchy of power in the policy process where corporate interests prevail over other interests? This is critical in that not all issues, perspectives and voices are equal and alternative processes or structures may be imagined which provide a more equal field of contestation.

This panel draws from the well-received "Business Lobbying in the European Union" by Coen et al. (2021) to discuss its key strengths, weaknesses, and contribution to the field. Simultaneously, it draws from the book's themes to address a wider discussion on future trajectories in the field. As such, this panel serves a dual role. First, it serves as a more traditional meet-the-authors panel, which engages with the book’s thesis, its analytics approach, and impact. To that end, the panel discusses the book’s innovative analytic approach, and it’s triple-layered assessment of business government relations (macro, meso, micro). It also addresses, its unique theoretical and methodological blend that draws from political science, public admin, and business & management studies. At the macro level, the book explores over 30 years of increasing business lobbying and explore the emergence of a distinct European business-government relations style. At the meso level, it assesses how the role of EU institution, policy types, and the policy cycle shape the density and diversity of business lobbying activity. Finally, at the micro level we seek to explore how firms organize their political affairs functions and mobilized strategic political responses. Second, the panel addresses the potential of theoretical fusions similar to the books, as we move forward in the field. There is a common space where business and management studies, public admin. and political science can meet to assess the multifaceted nature of business-government relations, particularly in the intricate EU context but not exclusively. To put this differently, as we attempt in the field to understand why, when, and how a nuanced interaction takes places, more elaborate conceptual tools will be necessary. Significantly, by no means is this limited to the theoretical tools employed in the book. Thus, drawing from the book and its themes the panel also discusses potential fruitful research avenues in business-government engagement.

Building from the 2020 IPPA panel discussion, “Consultants in the Policy Process,” this panel explores the role and impact of consultants in the policy-making process. Over the past three decades, policy consultants have been taken up by governments around the world in addressing a wide array of policy problems in different areas, including big issues - such as health governance, climate change adaptation, sustainable development, and e-government - as well as more mundane problems such as snow removal, hospital construction, and everyday accounting. Through this time the nature of the policy ideas with which they are associated seems to have evolved, as they have moved from the role of “rational planners” in the 60’s to “cost-cutters” in the 80’s, to legitimate actors in debates on policy problems and solutions today. Moreover, their position in the policy making process has been transformed, as they have become increasingly embedded in policy networks and processes as “co-pilots in the steering of government organizations” (Saint-Martin, 2013; 2017). Most recently, their extensive involvement in Covid-19 pandemic response in various jurisdictions suggested that major crises may serve to further entrench their role in governance and the provision of policy advice (Vogelpohl et al, 2022). As consultants have become powerful intermediaries in packaging and circulating policy ideas and practices across jurisdictions, a variety of disciplinary approaches have emerged that set out to understand their power and influence. Research on consultants has considered their role in the diffusion of specific policy instruments and governance arrangements, such as privatization and outsourcing; how their inclusion in policy processes have contributed to a shift to new policy logics; and how their involvement in the policy process serve to depoliticize policy decisions (Beveridge, 2012; Jupe and Funnel, 2015; Keele, 2019; O’Mahoney and Sturdy, 2016).

In a post-NPM world, Public Sector Innovation (PSI) is considered one of the most important reform trajectory and framing involving the current public sector reform landscape (De Vries et al. 2015). Part of this literature has analyzed how public sector collaboration with other public sector organization(s), businesses, universities, and citizens is increasingly becoming the main driver for PSI (Cinar et al. 2022), with recent studies showing a positive relationship between public sector collaboration and innovation outcomes (e.g, Clausen et al. 2020). To meet this practical transformation in public sector policymaking, a few theoretical and analytical studies has introduced the term “Collaborative Public Sector Innovation - CPSI”. This concept captures the capacity and potentialities of these new governance networks to solve wicked, emerging problems and to act as a new, unexplored framework for public sector innovation. Despite this emerging interest on CPSI within the public policy and public administration community, a set of weaknesses on the nature of current collaboration for public sector innovation continue to be present. These weaknesses limit the theoretical and empirical understanding of this approach to public sector reforms. A first, theoretical weakness concerns the relationship between CPSI and other post-NPM concepts and ideas, such as new public governance, neo-Weberian state, public value, digital-era governance, and public service logic. As a matter of fact, less is known about the layering effect between the CPSI and other post-NPM reform trajectories, as well if and how CPSI’ concepts, practices and measures are combined with them. In this direction, the analytical dimensions of the two canonical approaches used to distinguish the governance of public sector collaboration and to understand the complexities of the actors involved – respectively, the top-down/hands-on (Vento, 2020) and the bottom-up/hands-off (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017) – have never been placed side-by-side with the other post-NPM principles, and their empirical understanding is lacking. Furthermore, relatively little is known about in which stage of the policy-making process collaboration mainly occurs, as well as in which stage a greater positive relationship between collaboration and public sector innovation outcomes can be found. While it is established that collaboration can occur at the level of co-initiation, co-development, co-implementation, and co-evaluation, the analysis of the type of collaborative actors involved in this process and how they ultimately contribute on innovation continue to be limited. In the same direction, the analysis of which constructs of collaboration are critical for positive innovation outcomes across different jurisdictions and policy sectors has not yet been a particular subject of investigation until now. Similarly, empirical research has been limited to single country studies, and they mainly involved Western countries and areas, like North America, Western Europe, or Australia. Cross-country and cross-sectorial studies of how collaboration in the public sector differs and how it ultimately impacts on innovation outcomes continue to be circumscribed, thus limiting the possibility of reaching generalizations on CPSI knowledge and of providing a theoretical advance on CPSI concept and practices. The purpose of this Panel is to respond the recent calls coming from policy analysts and public administration scholars to overcome these theoretical and empirical knowledges on CPSI.

Commercial actors possess enormous economic power, which they use to shape consumer preferences and political decisions. Despite this, political scientists and scholars of public policy have paid relatively little attention to the political activities of corporations compared to other civil society actors such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), social movements, policy networks and epistemic communities (Wilkes 2013). Indeed, relatively few papers from the most recent ICPP focused directly on the influence of business interests on policy processes. Yet the importance of political strategy to the success of commercial entities has long been recognised within the literature in management science (Baron 1995, Hillman and Hitt 1999). Another area in which the research agenda on corporate political activity has developed rapidly in recent years is (global) health policy, which focuses on attempts by health-harming industries to shape regulatory environments. An initial focus on ‘big tobacco’ has broadened to include the alcohol, (processed) food/beverage, gambling and pharmaceutical industries etc. within the emerging field of the ‘commercial determinants of health’ (Mialon 2020). While great similarities have been identified in the approaches taken by these industries to frame policy debates and shape policy outcomes (Hawkins et al 2018; Lee et al 2016), the role of industries in policy-making domains beyond health has been less extensively researched, and comparative research across policy domains remains limited. In addition, there has been insufficient engagement between researchers working on the commercial determinants of health and the wider field of policy studies. While recent studies in global health policy have begun to draw on theories and concepts from political science (Hawkins and Holden 2016; Koon et al 2016; Hawkins and McCambridge 2021), the potential to develop more nuanced and insightful accounts of (global) health policy through inter-disciplinary research remains underdeveloped. At the same time, scholarship on the commercial determinants of health has received less attention from policy scholars, and in policy journals than in its own more specialised forums. Yet it offers potentially important insights for scholars working in other areas in terms of hypothesis generation and frameworks for considering the role of commercial entities as political actors. The aim of this panel is to create dialogue between scholars that focus on corporate political activity and other areas of policy studies. We anticipate that this cross-fertilization will generate comparative insight and new ideas for future research. In this way, we hope the panel will foster increased collaboration across policy contexts as they relate to the politics of commercial actors. To this end, we pose the following questions for the panel to consider: 1) What concepts and theories from political science and policy studies can be applied to deepen our understanding of corporate political activity? 2) What have we learned from research on health-harming industries that can be extended to other sectors? 3) How can recent scholarship better respond to the needs of policy to effectively manage the increasingly complicated relationship between modern corporations and the state? 4) What are the key gaps in the literature and opportunities for comparative research between: industries; policy domains; policy making contexts and levels of governance? References Baron, D. P. (1995). Integrated strategy: Market and nonmarket components. California Management Review, 37(2), 47-65. Hawkins, B. and Holden, C. (2016). A corporate veto on health policy? Global constitutionalism and investor-state dispute settlement. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 41 (5): 969-95. Hawkins, B., Holden, C., Eckhardt, J., and Lee, K. (2016). Reassessing policy paradigms: A comparison of the global tobacco and alcohol industries. Global Public Health, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2016.1161815. Hawkins, B. and McCambridge, J. (2021). UK alcohol policy, multi-level governance and corporate political strategy: The campaign for minimum unit pricing in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 23(3), 391-409. Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 825-842. Hird TR, Gallagher AWA, Evans-Reeves K, et al (2022). Understanding the long-term policy influence strategies of the tobacco industry: two contemporary case studies. Tobacco Control, 31:297-307. Koon, A., Hawkins, B. and Mayhew, S. (2016). Framing and the health policy process: A scoping review. Health Policy and Planning, 31(6): 801-16. Lee, K. MacKenzie, R. and Kenworthy, N. (eds) (2016). Case studies on Corporations and Global Health Governance: Impacts and Accountability. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Mialon, M. (2020). An overview of the commercial determinants of health. Globalization and Health, 16(1), 1-7. Wilks, S. (2013). The political power of the business corporation. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.

“Amidst Heterarchy: Co-Creation, Coherence and Complementarity in Transnational Policy Regimes (TPRs)” (in-person panel) We have experienced an explosion of spaces that go beyond territorial place. Heterarchical rather than hierarchical spaces of intangibles have been generated by telecommunications and information technology. These spaces to a great extent are situated in digital platforms that become more entrenched as sites of sovereign policy-making. Ours is a world in which human interactions are more and more positioned in spaces unfolding in practices that are multi-nodal, multi-layered/ multi-level, multi-scalar, and inter-scalar –- practices of emergent webs transnational reflexive governance. And with these there is set in motion transnational policy regimes (TPRs) beyond ad hoc collaborative tinkering. The ambiguities and uncertainties of the heterarchies marking our liquid second modernity trigger persisting and recursive transnational practices of policy co-creation and coordination manifested in standard setting. For example, transnational value chains of sustainable ecological and epidemiological performance; transnational standards of dispute resolution; threshold indicators; sensor verifiers; ratcheting labor standards; benchmarking; quality and equity standards; and an emphasis on “best practices.” Transnational policy regimes emerge at the intersection of informational networks rather than according to the price-signalling of markets or the administrative command and control of nation states. This is not as a delegation of state policy-making, but as a decentered regulatory ordering constituted by interlaced hybrid networks – sometimes referred to as meshworks. Our objective formulated as a basic composite research question: To what extent do TPRs’ co-creation go beyond market-driven or state-driven policy-making? And to what extent do TPRs bring about co-creation practices of standard setting that show a reflexive awareness of coordination problems and institutional complementarity needs? This composite research question sets off further questions and a hypothesis: · To what extent are TPRs dynamic “going concerns” capable of reflexive change? · To what extent do TPR interactions operate at specific scales, between scales, and across scales? · To what extent do TPRs achieve policy coherence in often having to regulate collisions caused by respective organizations’ contradictory normative orientations, decision logics and legal approaches? Hypothesis: The supervenience of Polycontextual Logic combines the need for coordinating heterarchy with a need for coordinating resolution of colliding autonomous subsystemic regime logics. Cf. Warren McCulloch, Gotthard Gunther. Niklas Luhmann and GüntherTeubner. Scientific Relevance: *Polycontexturality refers to the complementarity of fragmented rationales/ plural legalities. This paper helps to orient the discourse analysis in critical policy research of "reflexive network governance." It does so in helping to conceptualize issues of coordination and institutional complementarity terms of the processing of diverse and fragmented modes of respective functional logics of policy-making. *Call attention to the emergence of TPR as a persistent and path-dependent phenomena in policy-making practices. * Extend and refine the concepts of "policy regime/policy constellation".

Persistent economic and financial crisis has caused the renewed urgency to focus of accountability (Ferry and Murphy 2017) as financial sustainability regarding public services has moved to the top of the agenda (NAO 2014). The overall towards governance which has led to the non-public actors’ involvement in governing has often implied “messy, iterative, a multifocal accountability processes” (Brandsma 2012, p.971). With the increased number of polycentric entities, accountability implications prove more crucial than ever before, leading to perception that understanding the challenges related to managing this multiple accountability in the network settings and the channels through which these mechanisms work is vital. Accountability has served as a counter mechanism to the growth of democratic deficit (Peters and Pierre 2010, Flinders 2001, Rhodes 2007) and the overall disenchantment with politics (OECD 2001, Martin 2003). More often than not the concept of accountability has become a political catchword (Steets 2010), “the buzzword of modern governance” (Bovens et al 2014, p.1), “an appearing term” (Schedler 1999, p.13) which has been compared to “a hurrah-word, like ‘learning”, “responsibility” or “solidarity” and “nobody can be against” (Bovens 2005 p.182). In a similar vein Balla and Gormley (2017) refer to the concept as “one of those wonderful words that instantly evoke all sorts of positive images” (p.9). Consequently, this somehow magical context of accountability (Pollitt and Hupe 2011) is used in many contexts therefore the existing meanings of accountability are quite fuzzy (Kopell 2005, Steets 2010, Schedler 1995), slippery (Acar et al 2012) and of a ‘chameleon’ character (Quirk 1997). Accountability “now crops up everywhere performing all manner of analytical and rhethorical tasks and carrying most of the major burdens of democratic 'governance' “(Mulgan 2000, p.555). Mulgan and Uhr (2000) point out that “although the term ‘accountability’ is fundamental to governance discourse, expectations of accountability vary quite markedly with different institutional and community practices” (p.1). Yet, the accountability challenge is not unique- it is accompanied by the correlated and overlapping questions of transparency, power, responsibility, liability, and representation, to name just a few (Salminen and Lehto 2012, Koppell 2005). Contemporary governance arrangements have to cut across the tangled lines of multiple accountabilities and respond to various challenges (Roberts 2002). Public trust levels throughout the political system, participation rate and sense of accountability of public institutions and trust in the recent years have been plummeting (see for instance Svedin 2012, Clark and Veal 2011, Ranson 2013, OECD 2017, Quandt et al 2014). As Hetherington (2004) argues, waning trust in elected politicians is two-fold as it undermines both, the legitimacy of the institutions of representative democracy, as well as authority and competency of political leaders. This disenchantment with politics (Newton 2014, Hay 2017) , denoted by Papadopoulos (2003) as politikverdrossenheit has been linked to a growing divide between the governors and the ones governed (Hooghe and Zmerli 2013, Hetherington 2004) and has led to frustration and numerous protests (Quandt et al 2014, Hay 2007). Accountability, and especially its public dimension has become a core matter in the public management discussions (Christensen and Laegreid 2011). Despite the fact that the research on accountability in the context of partnership-type collaborative organizations (Acar 2011) is on the rise due to its “salient” character (Acar et al 2012, p.158), it so far remains highly fragmented, episodal (Brandsma and Schillemans 2012) and non-cumulative (Bovens et al 2014). Likewise, its meaning (Bovens 2010) and implications in the current milieu remain unclear (Acar et al 2012). As Drake (2012) concluded, accountability in multi stakeholder environment “suffers conceptual and practical confusion when interests pull in a variety of directions: (p.23) However the importance of accountability cannot be undermined. Bergsteiner (2002, p.13) has argued that the complexity of the conceptualisation from “different authors using the same words to mean quite different things, they use a multitude of different words when describing the same thing, they define terms in a circular fashion, or they invent new obscure and idiosyncratic words (such as responsibilization) where perfectly adequate words already exist” (p.13). While literature is abundant in relation to an assortment of definitions of accountability (Zimmermann and Cabinakova 2015), a few features that define the core of accountability overlap and a few situate the understanding of accountability in the context of partnership working, collaborative governance and networks, which by many are deemed to be the solution to the wicked problems the world is facing (reference). However, considering that as each of them notions is an ideograph and an umbrella term in itself which does not allow for a straightforward operationalisation (Bovens 2007; 2010), this makes it an exceptionally challenging task. This multiplicity and overlapping meanings of concepts have been highlighted by Zimmermann and Cabinakova (2015) who put forward the discussion on whether “accountability has to be regarded as a special form of one or more of the aforementioned concepts or vice versa” (p.263).

In different industrial sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, tobacco, oil and gas or agro-chemicals, financial incentives may be poorly aligned with socially desirable outcomes, including public health outcomes. In these situations, corporations will normally act to maximize their earning capacity. When the assessment and regulation of health risks becomes a central determinant of profitability and market niches, corporations often use behind-the-scenes strategies to influence regulators or professionals, shape scientific knowledge or popular culture, inflate perceived benefits of their products, and hide risks or downplay harms. When revealed, these strategies are often treated as specific "corporate scandals", and are not analyzed as elements of ongoing and structural dynamics intrinsic to such industrial sectors. However, a more comprehensive analysis shows that such corporate scandals seem to have become the norm, and appear to be taken directly from playbooks fostered by corporate lobbies and consulting, public relations, or communications companies. We use the term “ghost-management” to refer to systematic strategies to shape science, media, culture and public narratives, and to influence experts, opinion leaders and policy-makers in order to increase earning capacity to the detriment of public health. Often, ghost-management entails not only the production of knowledge, but also the production of ignorance or uncertainty through the dissemination of false, misleading, or contradictory information. It also entails influencing public policy, professional practices, media or civil society. Because of ghost-management activities, health care policy, especially when it came to health products or toxicology, has long been vulnerable to corporate strategies. The politicization of health care policy in a post-truth context seems to amplify these vulnerabilities to a whole new level. Disinformation, “alternative facts”, and “fake news” is becoming a growing challenge for the democratic governance of policy concerning health and health risks. This panel intends to bring together people from different disciplines to discuss how to study and identify ghost-management strategies, so as to develop policy tools to counter these corporate dynamics detrimental to public health. The main research questions for this panel are: 1-What practical tools can be used to investigate behind-the-scenes corporate—including consulting and communication company—strategies to maximize profits to the detriment of public health? 2-What conceptual and methodological tools can better explore how businesses influence knowledge, ignorance, and professional practices, turning them into profitable assets? 3-How can the answers to the above questions better inform the development of policy to safeguard public interests? The panel would favor presentations introducing investigational methods or analyzing on-going strategies pertaining to the corporate capture of scientific knowledge, professional practice, civil society groups, media or policy-makers.

Increasingly, project managers in large organizations are preoccupied with managing the scopes of deliverables as well as the complexities of stakeholder engagement. The root causes of such challenges, often buried in project governance structures, may remain unresolved for prolonged periods of time. Such issues can lead to unresolved escalations, decision making delays, suboptimal deliverables, inaccurate messaging, non-compliance, change requests, cost overruns and other negative outcomes. While resolving governance issues is critical, they are either glossed over during the introductory slides of charter presentations or overlooked entirely, during the overly optimistic banter of ‘kick off’ meetings. Governance risks are further ignored in the wake of sponsor changes and/or management turnover. The result can be sub optimal information flows and inaccurate reporting from project managers and business leads to senior management champions and executive sponsors. The resulting confusion and/or conflict around roles, responsibilities, and authority in turn leads to uninformed strategic discussions. Be these project realities as they may, governance will be an increasingly important determinant of project success across the public sector, especially as projects becomes larger, more complex, engage more stakeholders, and extend into the long-term horizon, well beyond the tenure of political appointees (5 years plus). The policy question which emerges, is what frameworks can be developed to ensure that governance discussions keep pace with project management realities and challenges? This panel sets the stage for a candid conversation between researchers and practitioners who engage the realities of managing project managers and in turn, spend most of their time gathering, analyzing, and comparing the root causes, drivers, and constraints to successful project delivery. The experiences of our panelists range from capital projects focussed on asset construction to information technology deployments of hardware and software. This panel avoids spending too much time on project management success, a topic which is already covered in abundance across technical disciplines. Instead, our panelist insights start with challenges and barriers to governance which are often in place well before project conception. The conflicting directives which frame the context within which project managers operate is also discussed. We also discuss how projects which have been constrained from the kickoff, can be re calibrated through a toolbox of instruments, measures, reporting and engagement which can fend off scope creep, political influences, redirected narratives, and other factors which derail projects. After a brief introduction and opening remarks by each panelist, the floor will be opened to questions and comments from the facilitator and panel, followed by the audience. By the end of the panel, we hope to have list of tools which participants have found to be useful in coping with and recalibrating project deliverables, milestones and adhering to original goals. This panel draws on material presented at the 74th IPAC Leadership Conference in Toronto as well as the 62nd MEA Conference in Toronto. Similarly, presentation material draws on research and practitioner insights from the construction and information technology disciplines of utility management.

The world is experimenting an economic slowdown as result of inflation in a large part of the countries, and the consequences of the coronavirus of a lower supply, shortage of materials and finished products, as well as regional problems of the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine that have impacted instability in geopolitical, economic and governance balance. Those impact in large cities around whom people and governments lives with huge problems consequences in quality in public services and financing policies and social lifestyle with high prices for example in housing, health systems and jobs, reducing expectations in the city for be there. For all this kind of problems the challenges for new tends and policies are necessary for reduces those impact and create opportunities for maintenance the governance sustainable for better society between public, social and private sector with elements objects of study in this subject. Object of study, are urban areas, cities and metropolis, in which various municipalities converge having several problems but at the same time creating formulation policies for solutions, worth documenting in cases and discussions papers. Therefore, the present study proposal aims to reflect on whether these changes can affect the evolution of public policies, finances and politics in cities, in particular, tools, projects and instruments for sustainability in a context of metropolis and governance. The panel purposes explore aspects too of the governance in the new economy trends of the instruments of the collaborative economy in favor of a better efficiency in the provision of services between supply and demand, towards public goods. Some questions are: is possible politicians, policymarkers and rent seekings be articulated to respond to the needs of the population in the metropolises and cities?; how create cooperation? New partnership for Smart Cities between public sector, citizens and private sector; what kind of regulations (incentives) are better: governments and players; and others. The main objective from this panel for discuses during the ICPP 2023 is related new players in the politics, economics and markets in urban areas and how the local governments could take those innovations tools to provide better public and private goods improving citizen´s life. Finally, the present panel is an interesting opportunity to discuss those relevance topics for rigorous scientific analysis with students, academics and practitioners coming from the different contexts and regions around the world to expand the knowledge and experiences.

The understanding of a singularity, either through the reconstruction of its "deep" mechanisms or through comparisons, has been a traditional means of scientific and professional research. Case studies probably derive from a commonsense way to draw lessons from experience. But they grew to become a sophisticated tool in the social sciences. In Robert Yin’s widely cited perspective, they evolved into a key strategy for those interested in the “how” and the “why” of phenomena. The sensitivity to “the how” in particular, attracted a growing theoretical attention from the policy sciences in general, and from public administration / management in particular. But what a public management case study should be, if it is to raise up to the challenge of contributing to deeper understanding of a state's "black boxes", as well as to better design, management and evaluation of public policy, is an expanding area of methodological debate. In the policy sciences, it is often credited to Mark Moore to have taken the first steps to salvage the gap between cases about management and theories about public management. Moore’s key ideas on the strategic management of public organizations, grounded in compelling “imaginary” cases, provided a new fertile ground. One can also see Eugene Bardach and Michael Barzelay, in complementary moves, drawing the attention to the “how”, as a defining part of the “what” and the “why” in cases. Bardach put in heuristic terms what many clever practitioners have always known: an experience in a source site must go through careful analysis before becoming useful for a target site. Most of this analysis needed to deal with the “how”, thus coining the idea of “smart practices” as a (mostly friendly) contribution “best practice” thinking. Barzelay posited case studies are not only a legitimate research option for public management, but the defining instrument to produce critical knowledge both for scientific and professional purposes. Embedded in a venerable tradition of understanding public organizations as purposeful phenomena –artificial organisms or “artifacts”– Michael Barzelay drew a genealogy aligning Herbert Simon’s artificial organisms, Henry Mintzberg’s organizational configurations, Eugene Bardach’s smart practices and Mark Moore’s public-value oriented strategic management. The blend produced a compelling array of “questions to asks” and “answers to find” when understanding why and how public management artifacts –organizations, campaigns, systems— design fulfills the mission of providing for alignment of outcomes to purpose in “working phenomena” or “functioning wholes”. This panel invites all scholars, “pracademics” and students interested in the above and willing to share case investigations with central or partial focus on how public organizations and undertakings are managed, as well as scholars and students interested in discussing the theoretical and methodological dimensions of such research. Focus on developing countries or on critical sectors of public policy is especially welcome, as these can be crucial contributions both to policy sciences and to governance strategies.

What is the current state of the art of Realist Evaluation (RE), research and synthesis in the discipline of public policy? With this methodology panel, we will provide an overview of the use of Realist Evaluation (RE) as applied to public policies. RE belongs to the school of theory-driven evaluation approaches, and has its origins in evaluation of interventions aiming at crime reduction (Pawson and Tilley 1997). Realist Evaluation is a theory-driven evaluation methodology through which programme theories are elicited, tested and refined. The appeal of this approach lies in its potential to co-produce research with stakeholders, identifying the programme theories underlying situations, interventions and programmes, and ‘testing’ these through empirical research. Through repeated evaluations, there is accumulation of knowledge and eventually middle-range theories can be formulated. Since the seminal publication of Realistic Evaluation by Pawson & Tilley in 1997, RE has been increasingly used not only in evaluations, but also in research and knowledge synthesis. We aim to answer the question: What is the current state of the art of realist evaluation, research and synthesis in the discipline of public policy? In recent years, Realist Evaluation has particularly taken off in the fields of global health, health systems research and sustainable development, with peer-reviewed publications reaching an all time high in 2021-22. This popularity is due to the recognition of the limitations of more traditional approaches to open the black box. At the core of RE is the search for contextualised, mechanism-based explanations. Going beyond the evaluation of programme effectiveness, realist evaluators aim at answering the question why and how programmes and policies work and under which conditions. It has been used in combination with other innovative (case-based) methodologies, such as process tracing and qualitative comparative analysis. Consequently, Realist Evaluation has been positioned as an alternative for experimental and quasi-experimental designs in the evaluation of complex policies and programmes. Besides offering an alternative way to the analysis of the processes and outcomes of the different stages of the policymaking and -implementation, RE may be especially useful to analysis of complex policies, in which multiple actors are involved and where context is an integral part of the causal processes underlying outcomes. Realist Evaluation may also provide a different reading and critique of what evidence-based policy making consists of, as it assumes a more political view on what constitutes evidence. We are inviting contributions that present empirical applications, methodological developments or theoretical reflections that may advance the application of RE in the field of public policy. Empirical papers may cover specific thematic policies, the processes underlying specific policy stages, the participation of policy actors in co-production of RE, etc. Methodological papers could look into how the analytical process of RE can be applied to policy, how RE can contribute to multi-level analysis, how RE can be integrated in or combined with other designs. Theoretical papers could, for instance, compare the philosophical underpinnings of RE with those of other methods, designs, or develop a critique of RE. During the conference, the Chair/panel proposer will provide a short introduction to Realist Evaluation to the audience. This will be followed by the presentation of papers demonstrating its use in diverse public policy sub-fields. The third part will be a panel discussion, moderated by the Chair and with the presenters, of the current challenges and opportunities related to the use of RE in the field of public policy. The panel would be onsite.

Gender mainstreaming and gendered policy analysis has been conceptualised, programmatically applied, and empirically evaluated by scholars and policy professionals for more than three decades. Over this period, there have been significant cross-national, subnational, and temporal variations in the adoption, adaptation, and institutionalisation of machinery and processes supporting gender expertise within the state (Hawkesworth, 2012; Hoard, 2015; McBride and Mazur, 2012; Paterson and Scala, 2021; Sawer, 2020; True and Mintrom, 2001). Numerous strategies and instruments, including gender impact assessments, gender responsive budgeting, and feminist foreign policy, have also been promulgated by international organisations seeking to prompt states to reduce gender gaps and enhance gender inclusive governance and ‘growth’ (ILO, 2020; IMF, 2021; OECD, 2017; WTO, 2021; UN Women, 2022). Despite these initiatives, comparative evidence indicates that gender-expert policy capacity is regularly resisted, contested, and delegitimised in ways that “mainstream” policy expertise is not (Bustelo et al, 2016; Kunz and Prügl, 2019; Paterson and Scala, 2017; 2021). In addition, gender mainstreaming approaches have been critiqued for not adequately addressing intersectionality, Indigeneity, and decolonisation (Bilge, 2014; Clark, 2016; Liska, 2015; Nasht, 2017; Pihama, 2020). These are important challenges for the study and practice of gender analysis, expertise, and building policy capacity. The timing is right for further engagement on this topic given policy capacity more generally has garnered renewed interest over the past decade or so. For example, policy researchers and government agencies have investigated what policy capacity involves in an environment where bureaucrats find themselves working on increasingly complex problems, that require rapid policy responses, for multiple ‘masters’ and stakeholders (Howlett & Wellstead, 2011; Newman et al 2017; Peters, 2015; Washington and Mintrom, 2018; Wu et al 2015). To date there has been limited connection between these two sets of scholarship while gender expertise often remains side-lined from government’s core business, despite evidence to indicate that few policy domains are gender neutral. Most recently, COVID-19 impacts and responses demonstrated that an absence of multi-level disaggregated data, and embedded gender expertise within the machinery of government exacerbated intersectional structural inequalities. We propose a panel on Gender Expertise and Reframing Policy Capacity to explore wide ranging critical questions regarding the theory and practice of gender expertise, training and mainstreaming. We welcome papers that engage with feminist, gendered, and intersectional approaches to the conceptualisation, contestation, and professional development of policy expertise and policy capacity. Papers that address theoretical, empirical, comparative questions, are encouraged, as are case studies of how gendered, intersectional, and decolonised expertise is valued and utilised as critical knowledges and practices by governments in fiscally challenging times.

A just society happens when political, economic and social participation in public and private lives is possible for all to consider equally, regardless of their current position in society (Van Dijk 2022). Women, who comprise more than 50% of all humans, are the largest disempowered group worldwide, despite decades of action leading to women’s equality featuring in every public programme or policy. UNWomen (2022) reports that there are currently 30 women heads of state or government which means that at the current rate, equal representation will only be achieved in another 130 years. Ministerial or leadership portfolios typically reflect traditional female roles. The most common briefs are areas of Family/children/youth/elderly/disabled; followed by social affairs; environment/natural resources/energy; employment/labour/vocational training, and women affairs/gender equality. For public organisations, achieving equality has been no more than a numbers game – if they can demonstrate, especially in their senior management cadre, equal representation by persons of all genders, then they claim they’ve banished prejudice. But women’s equality is not about representation - it is about the voice given to understanding the intersections that contribute to and continue to perpetuate inequality. Ever since Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term 'intersectionality' (1989) and Chandra Mohanty wrote "Under Western eyes" (1987), scholars agree that the intersections of gender, race, and class are not the only factors that maintain inequality - history, context and a myriad of other factors necessitate a nuanced understanding of not only women, but equality as well. Those leading public institutions and influencing the conversation around the nature of women’s equality have the responsibility and opportunity to shape how gender will be understood and practiced through organisational structures, processes and policies. This panel will interrogate: a) Where are women found? Women’s agency and its portrayal in policy development. b) Where are women heard? The manner in which women’s voices are integrated in public policies. c) Where women practice their gender? Examples of women’s participation in policy development and their lived experiences. d) Where women succeed? Sharing policy successes in ensuring women’s equality through sustainable public policies. e) Where women lead? Exploring how women contribute to leadership discourse in influencing public policy development. The purpose of the panel will be to leverage the agency of women in different contexts to enhance their contribution to public policy development. Key deliverables will be: · The development of networked relationships among an international group of women with executive agency in policy development · Increased awareness of public policy and administration research as a developmental resource in achieving equitable goals, even in inhospitable political environments. · Initiation of a common research and evaluation framework that can measure the complexity of intersectional equality in leadership, while capturing and including contextually specific differences within it. Sharing experiences that question representation as the indicator for women’s equality will offer recognition for the contributions made by more than 50% of the world’s population.

For years, academics and practitioners have raised debates on many social injustices, such as racial discrimination, equity, diversity, and gender equality. Recently, debates over citizenship and affirmative action have raised questions about integrating socially and politically excluded citizens and how public policy frames address such integration and empowering communities (Paiva, 2012). The citizenship debate has divided policymaking, political theories and practices between universal and particular rights, especially on policies addressing politically underrepresented citizens’ needs (Lizer, 1998; Cooper, 2018). However, the connections between affirmative action and policymaking still lack a more comprehensive understanding, opening another debate about how co-production can be a path allowing the alignment between policy design objectives and target groups’ needs (Bell, 2021). In addition, citizens’ self-initiatives have co-created social innovation in response to the lack of government actions to tackle social injustices (Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019). Therefore, social innovations have become possible solutions when translated into public policies and creating a bottom-linked governance approach (Galego et al., 2022; Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019). Citizens’ participation in co-producing public policies highlights the importance of public participation in policymaking (Brandsen et al., 2018; Fischer, 2006). Thus, allowing to development of more effective solutions for socially and politically excluded communities. Moreover, other factors may also be determinants for the positive effects of affirmative action policies, such as institutional, contextual, and political conditions. Therefore, seeking to understand how citizenship and affirmative action, contextually embedded, contribute to overcoming social injustices by linking socially and politically excluded communities with the policymaking process, this panel proposal raises the following questions: 1. How are social injustices addressed in affirmative action policies? 2. Social policies have addressed what types of social injustices? 3. How are social innovation initiatives tackling social injustices? 4. How is citizenship related to social injustices? 5. How have universal and particular citizenship debates evolved through affirmative action policies? Scientific relevance In response to the debates over citizenship and social injustices, this panel is to explore the many policy issues surrounding the topic with a policy study perspective. Such a perspective combines theoretical and practical debates to capture better a panoramic view of public policy’s contribution to tackling social injustice worldwide. References Bell, E. (2021). Deserving to Whom? Investigating Heterogeneity in the Impact of Social Constructions of Target Populations on Support for Affirmative Action. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 268–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12347 Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (Eds.). (2018). Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204956 Cooper, F. (2018). Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference: Historical Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fischer, F. (2006). Participatory Governance as Deliberative Empowerment: The cultural politics of discursive space. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282582 Galego, D., Moulaert, F., Brans, M., & Santinha, G. (2022). Social innovation & governance: a scoping review. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35(2), 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2021.1879630 Lister, R. (1998). Citizenship and Difference: Toward a Differentiated Universalism. European Journal of Social Theory, 1(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/136843198001001006 Moulaert, F., & MacCallum, D. (2019). Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, Massachusetts, USA: Edgar Elgar Publishers. Paiva, A. R. (2012). Citizenship, Racial Inequality and Affirmative Action Policies. The Latin Americanist, 56(4), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1557-203X.2012.01179.x

The Covid-19 crisis has contributed to widening gender gaps multidimensionally. In parallel, policies in the immediate response to the health crisis as well as for the recovery can contribute to mitigating or, conversely, further worsening the toll of the pandemic for women. Countries deployed highly heterogeneous response models differing in their gendered implications. A key example early in the crisis concerns the degree of reliance on policies such as school closures – far from solely varying across the severity of outbreaks. In this context, the gendered impact of the pandemic has received extensive attention and longstanding barriers to equality such as access to childcare have gained renewed centrality within the debate. At the same time, the heterogeneous gendered implications of policy responses play a fundamental role in shaping the implications of the pandemic for equality. A case of particular interest is the European Union where the common recovery effort under Next Generation EU – mobilizing substantial resources to fuel the post-pandemic reconstruction – is central for reforms and investments in the aftermath of the pandemic, raising the question of its potentially heterogeneous success in gender mainstreaming. From such a perspective, the pandemic crisis challenges progress towards gender equality while at the same time offering extensive opportunities for advocacy, investments and reforms toward gender mainstreaming in the recovery. The panel aims to address multidimensionally the questions of gender policies and politics in the response to the pandemic and recovery, welcoming papers on the gendered implications of national or supranational pandemic responses and recovery measures, both at the single country and comparative level. The scope of the panel includes all phases of policy-making in the aftermath of Covid-19, such as: · gendering policy debates within the pandemic and recovery agenda · assessing success and failure in gender mainstreaming response and recovery policy output · direct outcomes of gender equality policies and indirect gendered implications of response and recovery policies. Themes of interest span factors that facilitate or hinder the promotion of gender equality structurally or within the policy-making process; key actors in gendering response and recovery policies and their strategies.

Canada has a vision of inclusive economic growth that recognizes that innovation is driven by its diverse people. The importance of using a gender and diversity lens for inclusive economy is evident in the recent efforts made by federal, provincial and local governments as well as policymakers, program providers (e.g. OCAD University, University of Regina) and advocacy groups in Canada (e.g. CBoC, SheEO, Women of Influence), including increased funding opportunities and services directed towards women and diverse groups. The 50 – 30 Challenge, for example, a unique initiative by the Government of Canada, started in December 2020 with the goal of implementing gender parity (50% women and/or non-binary people) among the board members and/or in senior management; and achieve significant representation (30%) of other disadvantaged and underrepresented groups (including racialized people, Indigenous Peoples, people identifying as 2SLGBTQ+, and persons with disabilities) on boards and in senior management positions within the member organizations participating in this initiative. Canada also launched the Women Entrepreneurship Strategy (WES), an over $6 billion strategy to “increase women-owned businesses’ access to the financing, talent, networks, and expertise they need to start up, scale up, and access new markets.” We view the inclusive innovation ecosystem as a set of interdependent actors and factors coordinated in such a way that they enable productive economic activities within a particular territory. The processes of activities and interactions across the societal, organizational, and individual levels in the ecosystem often create opportunities for innovation. The proposed panel will discuss how public policies, such as the 50 – 30 Challenge and WES are having impacts on inclusive economic growth. Specifically, the objectives of the panel are to understand the existing gaps and challenges faced by stakeholders, including both individuals and organizations, in the ecosystem when implementing EDI-related challenges, their strategies to overcome such barriers and gaps, policy impacts on equity in labour force and work, equal access and success in entrepreneurship, and implication for future policy development and delivery to advance the inclusive innovation ecosystem.

Fourth Industrial Revolution, digital age, algorithmic society, quantum age, surveillance capitalism, informational capitalism, infocracy. These terms, among others, have been used to describe sociotechnical changes driven by digital technologies at a global scale. Emerging technologies, such as computational algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, etc., are embedded in devices that are ubiquitous in people’s lives and in the way that governments, corporations and civil society organizations operate. The development and implementation of emerging technologies may offer diverse benefits for individuals and organizations, but they can also negatively impact vulnerable individuals and communities and generate risks of harm for societies as a whole (Wirtz & Müller 2019). As the hundreds of incidents registered in the Artificial Intelligence Incident Database illustrate, these harms have started to materialize in different countries. Kuziemski & Misuraca (2020) argue that governments face a “double bind” situation: they should protect citizens from the potential harms of emerging technologies, but they also use these technologies to govern. Hence, policymakers and regulators are in charge of formulating policy and legal responses to the challenges generated by the new technologies and their market Micklitz et al., 2021), but they also have the incentive of enabling government usage of such technologies. As Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans, and Avi Goldfarb have aptly recognized, “[u]nder either the optimistic or the pessimistic view, policy will shape how AI [and other emerging technologies] impact (...) society” (2019, p. 140). It will influence not only the impacts of emerging technologies, but also their reach and diffusion. The reverse may also be argued: digital technologies affect “virtually every aspect of politics and policy-making” (Gilardi, 2022, p. 1) in different settings, from liberal democracies to autocracies. This panel aims at exploring how and why the policy and regulatory agendas of digital technologies change. The main objective of the panel is to discuss empirical and theoretical works that address the transformation of policy and regulatory agendas of emerging technologies in diverse political and economic contexts. The panel welcomes contributions that: identify the factors that contribute to shape agenda-setting processes associated with digital technologies; trace the incidence of diverse actors in the policy and regulatory processes; examine the different narratives that frame how problems associated with these technologies are understood and defined; study policy and regulatory changes through the lenses of diverse policy process theories (e.g. punctuated equilibrium, multiple streams approach, coalition framework); discuss whether policy and regulatory agendas are influenced by geopolitical dynamics; and, map different policy and regulatory trends and approaches regarding these technologies in different political systems.

Metropolitan regions have characteristics such as economic dynamism (Henderson, 2010; Storper, 2013; Tomàs, 2020, pp. 28–29); air and land connectivity (Hoyler et al., 2008; Thierstein & Lüthi, 2013; van Winden et al., 2007); ethnic, cultural and creative diversity (Florida, 2002; Graizbord & Santiago, 2019; Jacobs, 1961/1992; van Winden et al., 2007); and a strong presence of high-quality universities (Geenhuizen et al., 1997), research centers and human capital (Chapple et al., 2004). All these elements are linked to knowledge, science, technology and innovation. In addition, metropolitan regions are characterized by more pluralistic local governments (Ostrom, 1972). The economic engine of these regions is related to industrial and service activities (Black & Henderson, 1999; Glaeser et al., 1992; Storper, 2013), and in recent decades, activities associated with the Knowledge Economy (Brinkley, 2006). In this sense, the metropolitan regions of high-income countries have been the first to most successfully arrive at a knowledge-based economy (Lever, 2002; Scott & Storper, 2015, p. 5). However, the national and local governments of middle-income countries have also gradually incorporated scientific and technological development as part of their public policy objectives: They have created a legal framework, designed programs, incorporated institutions and allocated resources, as well as the use of policy mixes (Hood, 1983; Hood & Margetts, 2007; Howlett, 2019; Howlett & Rayner, 2007), to achieve the benefits of the knowledge economy, but at the same time, they have faced their own particular problems when promoting these policies, such as institutional weakness, corruption, little care for the environment, resistance to change in the economic model, resistance from business organizations (unions), lack of investment ecosystems, economic and social inequality, etc. Given the characteristics of middle-income countries compared to high-income countries, we believe that valuable science and technology policies lessons can be learned by reviewing and comparing these different contexts. In addition to the differences and peculiarities that the metropolitan regions present for the design of public policies that promote technological innovation, policy makers are facing many problems in making the policy related to the innovation system (Howlett, 2014; Peters et al., 2018), one example is the impact of the pandemic derived from Covid-19. The health emergency changed the way science and technology policies are designed, prioritizing specific issues and immediate needs. The general objective of this panel is to discuss –from a theoretical and empirical point of view- the different challenges that metropolitan regions face in the design and implementation of science, technology and innovation policies. Also, to identify lessons that can be drawn from the successes and failures, and outline some policy suggestions for metropolitan governments, particularly, we stress lessons from middle-income countries that intend to enter, or are in the process of entering, the knowledge economy. The principal questions to guide the discussion are: How have science and technology policies succeeded or failed in metropolitan regions? What lessons can we learn in the design and implementation of science and technology policies in metropolitan regions?

Artificial intelligence (AI), Autonomous Systems (AS) and Robotics are key features of the fourth industrial revolution, and their applications are supposed to add $15 trillion to the global economy by 2030 and improve the efficiency and quality of public service delivery (Miller & Sterling, 2019). A McKinsey global survey found that over half of the organisations surveyed use AI in at least one function (McKinsey, 2020). The societal benefits of AI, AS, and Robotics have been widely acknowledged (Buchanan 2005; Taeihagh & Lim 2019; Ramchurn et al. 2012), and the acceleration of their deployment is a disruptive change impacting jobs, the economic and military power of countries, and wealth concentration in the hands of corporations (Pettigrew et al., 2018; Perry & Uuk, 2019). However, the rapid adoption of these technologies threatens to outpace the regulatory responses of governments around the world, which must grapple with the increasing magnitude and speed of these transformations (Taeihagh 2021). Furthermore, concerns about these systems' deployment risks and unintended consequences are significant for citizens and policymakers. Potential risks include malfunctioning, malicious attacks, and objective mismatch due to software or hardware failures (Page et al., 2018; Lim and Taeihagh, 2019; Tan et al., 2022). There are also safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks that are difficult to address (Taeihagh & Lim, 2019) and The opacity in AI operations has also manifested in potential bias against certain groups of individuals that lead to unfair outcomes (Lim and Taeihagh 2019; Chesterman, 2021). These risks require appropriate governance mechanisms to be mitigated, and traditional policy instruments may be ineffective due to insufficient information on industry developments, technological and regulatory uncertainties, coordination challenges between multiple regulatory bodies and the opacity of the underlying technology (Scherer 2016; Guihot et al. 2017; Taeihagh et al. 2021), which necessitate the use of more nuanced approaches to govern these systems. Subsequently, the demand for the governance of these systems has been increasing (Danks & London, 2017; Taeihagh, 2021).

We propose a panel to examine how organizations respond to the evolution of innovation policy. Although there is a large literature on how to organize for innovation policy (Breznitz and Ornston and Samford 2018; Evans 1995; Karo, Drechsler, and Kattel 2022; Johnson 1982), scholars have typically treated those organizational structures as a constant, debating whether the optimal innovation agency is a prominent pilot agency or a peripheral one, highly centralized or loosely coupled, and embedded within markets or autonomous from them. Scholars have seldom examined how these organizational structures change over time. We argue that this is an important omission for three reasons. First, innovation policy, almost by definition, is characterized by continuous change. This is particularly true for innovation agencies which are tasked with targeting fundamentally new industries (Breznitz and Ornston 2013), but it also applies to organizations which are responsible with upgrading existing ones. Even these, more incrementally oriented intermediaries need to develop new policy instruments as their target industries evolve (Breznitz 2008). Second, growing attention to the “directionality” of innovation and an interest in mission-based policies in particular (Kuhlman and Rip 2014; Mazzucato 2021) has forced organizations to grapple with a wider range of societal goals beyond their historically narrower focus on economic growth or national security. Here, we find that there is almost no discussion at all about what (if) is and should be the relationship between those innovation agencies and social innovation. This broader mandate forces organizations to engage with an even wider range of stakeholders, both domestic and international, including some who have played a historically marginal position in innovation policy. Finally, and following directly from this, the growing political salience of innovation policy has challenged organizations which historically operated in a relatively hidden, technocratic space (Breznitz and Ornston 2018). We do not have a particularly good theory of the politics of innovation policy, since innovation studies rarely focuses on politics and political economists rarely concentrate on innovation (Ornston 2022). How do innovation agencies, and other organizations responsible for creating and implementing innovation policy, respond to this fluid and ever-evolving environment? How have organizations managed, or struggled, to develop new policy instruments? How have they grappled with a more diverse array of stakeholders? And how have they more or less successfully adapted to a more highly politicized environment? While this shifting environment is particularly challenging for policymakers, we propose to open up the discussion to a wider range of actors in innovation policy, including innovation agencies, universities, and civic organizations, in order to maximize the opportunities for dialogue and learning. We envision two in-person panels chaired by Dan Breznitz (Professor, University of Toronto and Taki Sarantakis (President of the Canada School of Public Service), one focusing on academic research and another engaging innovation policymakers.

Platforms significantly increase the ease of interactions and transactions in our societies. Crowdsourcing and sharing economy platforms, for instance, enable interactions between various groups ranging from casual exchanges among friends and colleagues to the provision of goods, services, and employment opportunities (Taeihagh 2017a). Platforms can also facilitate civic engagements and allow public agencies to derive insights from a critical mass of citizens (Prpić et al. 2015; Taeihagh 2017b). More recently, governments have experimented with blockchain-enabled platforms in areas such as e-voting, digital identity and storing public records (Kshetri and Voas, 2018; Taş & Tanrıöver, 2020; Sullivan and Burger, 2019; Das et al., 2022).How platforms are implemented and managed can introduce various risks. Platforms can diminish accountability, reduce individual job security, widen the digital divide and inequality, undermine privacy, and be manipulated (Taeihagh 2017a; Loukis et al. 2017; Hautamäki & Oksanen 2018; Ng and Taeihagh 2021). Data collected by platforms, how platforms conduct themselves, and the level of oversight they provide on the activities conducted within them by users, service providers, producers, employers, and advertisers have significant consequences ranging from privacy and ethical concerns to affecting outcomes of elections. Fake news on social media platforms has become a contentious public issue as social media platforms offer third parties various digital tools and strategies that allow them to spread disinformation to achieve self-serving economic and political interests and distort and polarise public opinion (Ng and Taeihagh 2021). The risks and threats of AI-curated and generated content, such as a Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT-3) (Brown et al., 2020) and generative adversarial networks (GANs) are also on the rise (Goodfellow et al., 2014) while there are new emerging risks due to the adoption of blockchain technology such as security vulnerabilities, privacy concerns (Trump et al. 2018; Mattila & Seppälä 2018; Das et al. 2022). The adoption of platforms was further accelerated by COVID-19, highlighting their governance challenges. The rise of misinformation and digital health technologies have created heated debates around trust and privacy on these platforms, and the term ‘misinfodemic’, though coined in 2018, is now used to refer to misinformation related to the pandemic (Marrelli, 2020). The US Sub-Committee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law recently released its report investigating competition in digital markets (US Antitrust Report, 2020). The report also finds that due to the absence of competition, dominant tech firms bear little financial consequence when misinformation is promoted online, and content moderation of unlawful and harmful content hosted on such platforms is an ongoing issue. With this backdrop, countries worldwide have started looking into regulating technology platforms more seriously. This panel will present papers discussing the various dimensions of the use of digital platforms and their implications for policy-making.

Place-based innovation strategies are taking centre stage in urban policy and governance, and ‘Innovation Districts’ and similar initiatives are an increasingly popular strategic instrument for promoting the economic revitalisation of ‘left-behind’ places. Such initiatives represent a shift in spatiality and terminology: earlier ‘science park’ and ‘business park’ type type campusdevelopments tended to be more exurban or suburban, but the Innovation Districts (ID) concept isare typically embedded within the urban, sometimes around university campuses or conceived as means to complement inner-city redevelopment strategies. These IDs are a new kind of policy space (Uyarra & Flanagan, 2010) where the interests and resources of science and innovation policy, business development and entrepreneurship policy, urban development policy and planning, amongst other domains of public policy, come collide together at the neighbourhood level. However IDs remain a fuzzy concept (Markusen, 1999) and there has been limited research on ID-type initiatives (Kayanan, 2022), and very few studies of the governance questions posed by them. We can trace the origin of the planned urban ID to the Barcelona@22 initiative (see Morisson, 2020), although university ‘science cities’ and education precincts have a longer history. The Barcelona project was itself influenced by the long-term development of the Kendall Square area of Boston, Massachusetts, often seen as the exemplar of an urban innovation district anchored by a world class research university (see e.g. Ruderi, 2022). The concept has since been popularised as an urban regeneration and innovation policy tool by the Brookings Institution (Katz and Wagner, 2014), and has gone on to influence initiatives in cities in the US, Canada, Netherlands, UK, Germany, Australia and elsewhere. ID proponents tends to focus on high-tech entrepreneurship (in a mixed-use, ‘creative class’ type context) as an engine of urban revitalisation and of innovation (Kayanan, 2022), but IDs risk becoming gentrified urban enclaves that heighten social and economic inequalities (Morrison & Bevilacqua, 2019). The ID concept, even where universities are involved, may also neglect the role of students, and student creativity and entrepreneurship, which may be considerable (Breznitz et al, 2022). And at the same time other scholars have argued for a broader concept of ‘urban laboratories’ for societal change (see e.g. Evans and Karvonen, 2014). We need a more nuanced understanding of how and for whom IDs are beneficial (Kadyrova et al., 2022), about the spatial and relational dimensions of these initiatives and their policy and governance implications, and about the potential for knowledge exchange and engagements between communities, government, and businesses to enhance inclusivity (Pancholi et al., 2020; Esmailpoorarabi et al., 2020). This panel aims to unpack the ambitions and implications of Innovation Districts in transforming urban spaces and bringing aboutaddressing broader societal changes, with a particular focus on governance, inclusion and sustainability implications. We are also particularly interested in the roles universities play as powerful actors in the governance of these initiatives, whether as land or property owners in their own right, as anchor institutions, or otherwise as boosters of the ID idea. How can IDs be the drivers of collaborative partnerships and community-led decision making within urban creative and knowledge economies? What would a successful inclusive ID look like, and how would we measure this success? Who benefits, and how? References Breznitz S, Lawton Smith H & Bagchi-Sen S, 2022, “The contribution of students to regional economies: reframing the regional innovation systems approach”, Regional Studies, 56:6, 885-891, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2022.2053097Buderi, R., 2022. Where Futures Converge: Kendall Square and the Making of a Global Innovation Hub. MIT Press.Esmaeilpoorarabi N, Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Guaralda M, 2020, “How can an enhanced community engagement with innovation districts be established? Evidence from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane”, Cities, 96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102430Evans J and Karvonen A, 2014, Governance of low carbon futures in Manchester. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38: 413-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12077Kadyrova A, Flanagan K, Shapira P, Uyarra E, 2022, “Can innovation districts be more inclusive?”, Research Professional News, 6 April, https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-political-science-blog-2022-4-can-innovation-districts-be-more-inclusive/Katz, B. and Wagner, J., 2014. The rise of urban innovation districts. Harvard Business ReviewKayanan, C. M., 2022. A critique of innovation districts: Entrepreneurial living and the burden of shouldering urban development. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 54(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X211049445Markusen A, 1999, Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies, Regional Studies, 33, 869-884, 10.1080/00343409950075506Morisson A and Bevilacqua C, 2019, “Balancing gentrification in the knowledge economy: the case of Chattanooga’s Innovation District”, Urban Research & Practice, 12:4, 472-492, https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1472799Morisson A, 2020, “A Framework for Defining Innovation Districts: Case Study from 22@ Barcelona”. In: Bougdah, H., Versaci, A., Sotoca, A., Trapani, F., Migliore, M., Clark, N. (eds) Urban and Transit Planning. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17308-1_17Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., Guaralda, M., Mayere, S., Caldwell, G.A. and Medland, R., 2020. University and innovation district symbiosis in the context of placemaking: Insights from Australian cities. Land Use Policy, 99, p.105-109.Uyarra, E. and Flanagan, K., 2010. From regional systems of innovation to regions as innovation policy spaces. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(4), pp.681-695.

The spread of disinformation is a global challenge undermining democracies around the world. The rise in conspiratorial beliefs, radicalization and polarization is often being blamed on the new digital information ecosystem that rewards engagement over authenticity of information. But digital disinformation is a classic wicked problem — the challenge has no definitive formulation or determinable stopping point such that a single policy solution will solve it; and potential solutions can be contradictory, incomplete or create other challenges, not least of which in this case is the potential to infringe on the right to free expression. Such a problem calls for a complex set of actions from different actors, including governments, online platforms, news media, educational institutions and users, to mitigate rather than ‘solve’ its impacts. The transnational spread of online disinformation adds additional geopolitical complexity to potential policy responses, particularly where it is intentionally generated or spread by adversarial actors. This onsite panel will explore the question: What are potential concrete policy options to respond to the challenge of online disinformation? The panel discussion will reflect on the ways in which potential policy responses interact with each other and could create counter-effects. It will also reflect on how different proposed approaches might apply in different platform contexts, such as private messaging platforms compared to more open platforms, such as YouTube or Twitter. It will aim to feature proactive educational efforts to inoculate against the effects of disinformation, such as digital literacy efforts in schools and communities and support for independent journalism. It will also review proactive platform features to mitigate the potential spread of disinformation, such as restrictions on bots or coordinated inauthentic behaviour, policies against disinformation through paid ads, or platform tools to encourage users to verify information or search for additional context. It will also feature reactive platform responses designed to counteract the effects of disinformation, such as warning or context labels on synthetic media or disinformation identified by fact-checkers and algorithm changes intended to de-prioritize such content or more broadly news or political content. Finally, it will review government policy responses that have gained particular traction, such as platform governance efforts underway to require platforms to evaluate and mitigate systemic risks, legal transparency requirements, and in its more extreme form, policies ordering the removal of specific content under certain emergency conditions.

In the wake of the Covid-19 outbreak, the pace of digitalization and reliance on ubiquitous technologies within the public sector, education and industrial sectors have exponentially increased. Rapid digital transformation is often heralded as providing opportunities for universal internet access, availability of electronic public services and innovations in the digital financial sector, such as mobile money, e-wallets or branchless banking. Nevertheless, despite the promises of ubiquity, the diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has frequently been unequal. Instead, they have often reproduced a pattern of inequality, particularly for the countries in the global south. ICTs, as such, do not evolve and operate in isolation. Their access and use are intertwined in the societal structures, indigenous cultures and technical capacities. From the perspective of vulnerable groups such as economically disadvantaged, low-income children, the elderly, refugees, women, and people with disabilities, ICTs present a more significant challenge. Even for supranational organizations such as European Commission, digital inclusion remains its top priority in its digital agenda and digital disability strategy for 2021-2030. A few primary concerns within the digital inclusion debate involve fostering affordable, accessible and assistive ICTs that empower citizens by enabling them with digital skills to fight marginalization and societal exclusion. On the other hand, there are also growing fears of new-age developments in machine learning and artificial intelligence that may lead to bias and exclusion of specific groups in society. This panel, therefore, seeks to address the policy challenges associated with digital inclusion to prevent exclusion and digital discrimination. For example, how does digital inclusion benefit the lives of vulnerable groups such as seniors, rural women and people with disabilities? How do the current knowledge and digital gaps reproduce the existing patterns of inequality? What policy instruments do the global institutions and supranational organizations currently promote for fair digitalization. This panel aims to address a wide range of issues ranging from the current trends in digital inclusion and inequalities to the impact of assistive technologies supporting people with disabilities and social inclusion of disadvantaged groups within regional, national, international and comparative contexts. Overall, this panel contributes to both the academic literature and the public policy debate on the nondiscriminatory growth of digital technologies and future policy responses to digital exclusion.

The rise of emerging technologies in the last decades revolutionized product and services across industries from healthcare to finance, from chemistry to energy, and still hold the promise of ground-breaking innovations and commercial applications. The novelty, rapidity, and radical changes that are brought about by emerging technologies, however, also result in various uncertainties concerning the effects of novel products and services to individual health, social practices, and the environment. Issues arise concerning, for example, accountability and transparency of scientific and technical advancements, public awareness and participation, definition and protection of intellectual property, industrial policy, and international competitiveness. Scholarly research in social science on these challenges broadly developed around three themes, namely the understanding of emerging technologies and their implications, the formulation of regulatory approaches, and the appraisal of regulatory instruments and practices. While these studies elucidated the discourse, approaches, and instruments to regulate emerging technologies, research on this topic is still deficient in at least three respects. First, research on the regulation of emerging technologies should pay more attention to the role of risk, how it is distributed across entities involved (i.e., individuals, businesses, investors, governments), and how this relates to the institutional arrangements that regulate risk definition and allocation. Second, research on the regulation on emerging technologies should analyse the role that trust plays in the relationships between the entities involved in the regulatory arena (i.e., the public, scientists, companies, regulators), and how trust relates to their uncertainty, knowledge and power. Third, research on the regulation of emerging technologies should aim to explain how governance configurations help conciliate conflicting stakes (i.e., national competitiveness, profitability, individual health and safety, environmental protection) and orient towards making advantageous regulatory policy decisions. Accordingly, this call for a Special Issue in Governance aims to attract original research papers that address, but are not limited to, one or more of the following questions: · How is risk from the use of emerging technologies defined, and how does definition of this risk affect regulatory policy and practices?· How do institutional conditions affect the definition of the risk from the use of emerging technologies?· What affects the allocation of risks from the use of emerging technologies, and how do entities involved cope with allocated risk?· What affects public trust towards emerging technologies and their applications, and towards scientists, companies, and regulators?· What is the role of public trust in the governance of emerging technologies, especially in relation to uncertainty, knowledge and power of the entities involved?· How does regulatory governance help conciliate conflicting stakes of entities involved in emerging technologies?· What features of regulatory governance help make regulatory policy decisions that are most advantageous for the economy and society?· Which system of regulatory governance is most advantageous to promote national competitiveness? The call welcomes both empirically-based theoretical and normative theoretical papers.

Cybersecurity has become the main digital-related public concern in contemporary societies. The issue has rapidly scaled up the political agenda of international organizations, national governments and local authorities alike, gaining a stable position among the top-level priorities of governments and agencies. Further, the pandemic has boosted the digital transformation all over the world, and sharpened the complexity, the scale, the scope, and the interdependencies of cybersecurity problems. Facing these new collective problems, private and public policies have increasingly been developed in different societal contexts and on multiple institutional levels. A fast-growing branch of policy studies is emerging to better understand these processes of policy-making, and to analyze their impact and consequences on individuals, businesses, public administrations and institutions. Some scholars have studied how public discourse on cyber security affects the emergence of specific institutional design and policy instruments (Lawson and Middleton 2019; Miao, Xu, Zhu 2019; Stevens 2018). Others have investigated the conditions that enable or prevent policy change in national cybersecurity arenas (Schively 2021). Other studies have adopted a comparative perspective, aiming at identifying economic, cultural, legal and institutional factors that shape different national approaches to cybersecurity policies (Karatas 2020, Shackelford 2021; Creese, Dutton,Esteve-González 2021). Further lines of research have focused on cybersecurity as a matter of international cooperation, both in terms of capacity building and policy transfer (Homburger 2019), and as a field of intergovernmental partnership and foreign policy (Christou 2017; Christou, Lee 2021). The main objective of this panel is to understand how cybersecurity is getting institutionalized in multilevel, polycentric systems of governance. It aims at convening scholars who are addressing cybersecurity policies from different angles, in order to trigger a discussion about if and how cybersecurity is emerging as a specific domain of public policy. Papers will present new theoretical and methodological reflections, as well as empirical research, on the institutionalization of cybersecurity and the related processes of policy-making. Presentations will share new analytical frameworks, comparative analyses and in-depth case studies on policy discourses, frames, networks, instruments and outcomes. The panel will take place on-site In Toronto, though allowing remote presentations.

This onsite panel observes the multiple forms of political organisations, decisions, activities and arrangements that take place at the local level in order to deal with sustainability and ecological transition. Its aim is twofold: Examining the patterns of both collaborative and self-governance processes and fostering the dialogue between the studies of the policy process and environmental politics. Most issues related to environmental protection and sustainability, mainly global warming and biodiversity loss, are dealt, at least partly at the local level. For example, the greenhouse gas emissions are actually emitted locally by individuals or organisations which are geographically located. Consequences of global warming similarly affect communities and populations in tangible ways such as flooding and heat waves. In order to tackle or react to these environmental issues, both local policymakers and citizen groups elaborate and implement local policies or set up local arrangements. These actions have important consequences in terms of environmental justice both the responsiveness from the different communities and the consequences in resource redistribution (power relationships and legitimacy). Governance highlights policymaking as a complex process involving both State and non-State actors (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2016). It varies across the actors who intervene in the policymaking process and the nature of their interactions. Although the goals may converge, local governance has multiple facets: hierarchy, market, network and self-governance (Bouckaert, Peters, and Verhoest, 2010; Berge and van Laerhoven, 2011). Hierarchy involves the traditional policy process held by local authorities. Market governance relates to processes of competition between (public or) private service providers. In collaborative types of governance, whether to manage a natural resource or to practice urban planning, policymakers increasingly dialogue with stakeholders in the idea of mutual interest and common values (Leach et al., 2014; Sørensen and Torfing, 2020). Self-governance refers to non-state responses to policy problems by groups of citizens or landowners who elaborate governance processes and share resources, goods or services in common (e.g. community or inter-generational housing projects) (Ostrom, 1990). Often, policy responses involve a mix between these different processes. Local issues offer a unique opportunity to observe how the different modes of governance operate in concreto. Climate adaptation projects such as cooling down cities during heatwaves or protecting villages from flooding often take shape at the local level. Many levers to tackle environmental issues also operate at the local level, for instance through attempts to decarbonize mobility. The local level allows for more innovative arrangements to be developed as niches of experimentation (Nieminen et al., 2020). Actors get more interrelated and more easily identifiable. The local level – whether urban or rural – constitutes a good laboratory for sustainability governance. A diversity of strategies, perspectives and instruments exist not only to tackle environmental issues, but also to provide answers where policy incoherencies manifest (Cejudo and Michel, 2017). This panel seeks to gather contributions shedding light on the diversity of policies, tools and processes existing to formulate answers to the sustainability and transition challenges at the local level. What do we know about local governance? What are the specificities of the local level? Who are the actors engaging in local policymaking? What are the existing modes of interaction of the actors? How do these different types of interactions affect the decisions, and thus the situation of local territories?

This panel seeks to question the approaches and assumptions found in both environmental policies and energy conservation policies. Do the dramatic challenges that all humanity face currently in this Anthropocene epoch force a commensurate change in the analytical approaches of academics? Core examples of this include the question of whether environmental policy, often with a focus on end of pipe remediation, has the required theoretical and empirical focus to deal with the massive challenge of climate change and biodiversity loss? Are more integrated approaches necessary, such as that argued by the circular economy literature (Leipold 2021)? Does the current environmental policy tradition (and its academic study) ignore normative issues relating to social justice (e.g. questions of equity, intergenerational justice) and the integration between human and non-human experiences? The perspective underlying this potential change is to recognize that "normative" is a broad concept with many dimensions, including that society may have normative obligation to flora, fauna, ecology and survival of the world, as well as the issues of social justice, both among today's people and across generations. At the same time, are the current foci neglecting other imperative issues and processes (e.g. UN Sustainable Development Goals - Hartley 2021)? Another illustration of the challenges the fields face is the ‘return’ of energy security and focus on re-building economies post Covid (Brown and Huntington 2008). Other important considerations include the role of crisis itself. Is there no longer the same amount of space for ‘normal’ environmental and energy policy making, or does the focus on crisis distort the policy picture and essential decision-making? Should public policy and its study calibrate its approach to deal with prolonged turbulence and prolonged sequences of crises (Ansell et al. 2017, Ladi and Wolff 2021)? There are increasing signs of public policy studies reassessing its approaches to understanding our biosphere (e.g. Biermann 2021); what balance needs to be struck in terms of innovation versus retention of past learning and ideas? This panel asks participants to present analytical frameworks and research strategies that take into account the current rapid evolution of environmental policy thinking, and push analytical, conceptual and empirical innovation in these fields. The core research question is for authors to showcase innovative ways of thinking about the future trajectory of environmental and energy conservation policy. How do we go about re-thinking assumptions, categorizations and other policy studies conceptualizations and how do we develop new and/or interdisciplinary thinking? Participants are encouraged (but not required) to take a comparative perspective to show how policy-makers in different territories, policy areas approach this question. Participants will be asked to debate whether or not they accept the proposition that the changing nature of environmental and energy problems requires both new policy studies approaches as well as new policy solutions (and if so what pathways will deliver on these requirements). Participants should also consider whether there are important gaps in the field of study, but also whether the efforts to extend our analytical endeavours leaves us vulnerable to overlooking important elements of current public policy and its study.

Climate change adaptation and mitigation policies are governed globally by frameworks of exceptional proportions such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Aykut & Maertens, 2021; Aykut et al. 2017). Scholars have pointed out the limited results that such global environmental governance has on achievements while at the same time have highlighted the emergence of new pathways of more efficient and equitable policy making focused on local governance using local knowledge specifically in the Global South (Dahan, 2014 ; Leah S. Horowitz et al. 2017 ; Avila, 2018 ; Temper, 2019 ; Garcia del-Amo et al. 2020). This process is called the decolonization of Climate Change following the work of Manuel Shvartzberg Carrió and Danika Cooper (2022). The panel would wants to demonstrate the role of local practices in shaping regional climate actions specific to communities of the Global South, where historically environmental policies have been implemented that are disconnected from the territorial, cultural and heritage contexts (Lunt I., et.al, 2012, Simpson N., et.al, 2022; IPCC, 2021).

Recently, with more frequent climate calamities caused by climate change, the need for a sustainable energy transition is greater than ever. However, sustainable energy transitions cannot be a simple and short-term shift to renewable energy sources, but require “long-term and complex reconfigurations of technology, policy, infrastructure, scientific knowledge and social and cultural practices to sustainable ends” (Baker et al., 2014, p. 4). As many actors, such as governments and civic organizations, get involved in this move, it becomes harder to align their goals and agree on the best way to achieve energy transitions. Furthermore, “carbon lock-in” hinders pivotal changes even when reaching an agreement among various actors (Unruh, 2000). Given this nature of energy transitions, it is evident that dynamic interactions and conflicts among various actors and factors are involved in the transition process, making it more complex to realize. For example, technocrats in governments (actors) have usually sought to find an efficient way to transition based on a top-down approach while civil actors prefer a democratic way based on a bottom-up approach. In doing so, certain factors, such as democratic procedures, not only enhance social acceptance of renewable energy policies but also reveal conflicting interests among various groups (Baldwin et al., 2018; Knudsen et al., 2015). In addition, certain regulations generated in the past for the incumbent could impede energy transitions by amplifying conflicts during the process. Another example shows that governments could deal with challenges through interaction, such as policy learning from others (Etheredge, 1981; Etheredge & Short, 1983). Therefore, it is imperative to explore interactions and conflicts among various actors and factors during energy transitions in order for the transition processes to be not only effective but also democratic. However, the literature on energy transitions has focused more on causational and static assessments rather than dynamic interplay among actors and factors and their repercussions. (Kern & Markard, 2016; Kern & Smith, 2008; Pidgeon et al., 2014; Rasch & Köhne, 2016; Verbong & Geels, 2007). This onsite panel thus aims to answer this research question: How do various agents deal with challenges and tensions caused by dynamic interactions between actors and factors during energy transitions? Dealing with this overarching question can contribute to understanding the complexities of energy transitions and facilitate a more just and effective energy transition, which is one of the most urgent tasks for humanity. References Baker, L., Newell, P., & Phillips, J. (2014). The Political Economy of Energy Transitions: The Case of South Africa. New Political Economy, 19(6), 791–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2013.849674 Boon, F. P., & Dieperink, C. (2014). Local civil society based renewable energy organisations in the Netherlands: Exploring the factors that stimulate their emergence and development. Energy Policy, 69, 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.046 Boyle, E., Watson, C., Mullally, G., & Ó’ Gallachóir, B. (2021). Regime-based transition intermediaries at the grassroots for community energy initiatives. Energy Research and Social Science, 74(September 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101950 Etheredge, L. (1981). Government learning. In The handbook of political behavior (pp. 73–161). Springer. Etheredge, L., & Short, J. (1983). Thinking about government learning. Journal Management Studies, 20, 41–58. Haldar, S. (2021). Sustainable entrepreneurship development in the renewable energy sector: Insights from Gujarat, India. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 13(7), 873–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2020.1796004 Kern, F., & Markard, J. (2016). Analysing Energy Transitions: Combining Insights from Transition Studies and International Political Economy. The Palgrave Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy, 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55631-8 Kern, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 36(11), 4093–4103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.018 Knudsen, J. K., Wold, L. C., Aas, Ø., Kielland Haug, J. J., Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P., Qvenild, M., & Jacobsen, G. B. (2015). Local perceptions of opportunities for engagement and procedural justice in electricity transmission grid projects in Norway and the UK. Land Use Policy, 48, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.031 Newell, P., & Mulvaney, D. (2013). The political economy of the “just transition.” Geographical Journal, 179(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12008 Pidgeon, N., Demski, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K., & Spence, A. (2014). Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 13606–13613. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317512111 Rasch, E. D., & Köhne, M. (2016). Hydraulic fracturing, energy transition and political engagement in the Netherlands: The energetics of citizenship. Energy Research and Social Science, 13, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.014 Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7 Verbong, G., & Geels, F. (2007). The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004). Energy Policy, 35(2), 1025–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.02.010

The transition to a sustainable energy system is currently facing the challenges created by two consecutive global crises: the COVID-19 global pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The dramatic reduction in natural gas international flows and the consequent increase in energy prices, due to the economic sanction against Russia, has come at a time when countries are still recovering from the economic shocks and disruption to global value chains from the global health pandemic. This has led to questioning how the combination of these two crises is going to affect countries’ policies, and ambitions, on their energy transition programs in the short, medium, and long term. Even though the need to implement policies to limit the impact of climate change and a faster transition to sustainable energy systems is as urgent as, or even more than, ever (floods in Pakistan this year as an example). However, there is the risk that governments’ climate agenda will be left secondary to “other more pressing issues”. This may include legitimate actions to support the population that may be more severely impacted by the increase in energy prices for electricity, thermal comfort, and transportation (as highlighted by the literature on energy poverty). As well as short-term energy security concerns which may justify the need to extend the lifetime of polluting energy generation plants. But there is also the risk that it may be utilized by some others to limit or reduce the transition to more sustainable energy systems. In addition, there are risks that the current sourness of international relations may affect the required cooperation in the climate agenda at international fora, as happened at the G20 (and so might be seen at COP27, not yet at the time of this writing). All this will impact for severely countries in the Global South. For example, a slowing down in the progress on the realization of the 7th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG-7) has been reported, particularly in the pace of electrification and the impossibility for around 90 million people in Asia and Africa to afford energy services to which they had access previously. Nonetheless, there are opportunities to learn from the crises and practices experienced and feed them into the design of new policies and redefine research agendas. For that, this panel aims to bring together papers on experiences and practices from both Global South and North to address the two crises and their impact on energy and climate agendas, as well as those reflecting on emerging topics related to the intersection between energy transition and energy security. References: Höysniemi, S. (2022). Reimagining energy futures: Global energy transition and dependence on Russian energy as issues in the sociotechnical imaginaries of energy security in Finland. Energy Research & Social Science, 93, 102840. Kuzemko, C., Bradshaw, M., Bridge, G., Goldthau, A., Jewell, J., Overland, I., ... & Westphal, K. (2020). Covid-19 and the politics of sustainable energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 68, 101685. Quitzow, R., Bersalli, G., Eicke, L., Jahn, J., Lilliestam, J., Lira, F., ... & Xue, B. (2021). The COVID-19 crisis deepens the gulf between leaders and laggards in the global energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 74, 101981. Sovacool, B. K., Del Rio, D. F., & Griffiths, S. (2020). Contextualizing the Covid-19 pandemic for a carbon-constrained world: Insights for sustainability transitions, energy justice, and research methodology. Energy Research & Social Science, 68, 101701. Zakeri, B., Paulavets, K., Barreto-Gomez, L., Echeverri, L. G., Pachauri, S., Boza-Kiss, B., ... & Pouya, S. (2022). Pandemic, War, and Global Energy Transitions. Energies, 15(17), 6114.

Since their publication in 2009, planetary boundary concepts and related' tipping points' (Rockström et al., 2009; McKay et al., 2022) have significantly influenced academic debates and policy recommendations in international organizations and governments worldwide to move towards more sustainable governance. However, this framework has been the subject of multiple academic criticisms from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the political community. What is controversial is that the limits and tipping points are synonymous with climate risks and are proposed by experts (in natural sciences) without the participation of social scientists, governments, and the deliberation of the general public. In particular, the dimension of global inequality (particularly in the global south) and social justice is not included (Biermann and Kim 2020). Today an interesting global debate is taking place on how we can identify positive social tipping points to meet climate goals. Diverse authors have identified a lack of studies on tipping points in the socio-economic domain, and they might be highly policy-relevant in climate change (Filatova et al. 2016; Kopp et al. 2016; Biggs et al. 2018; Kabir et al. 2018; Milkoreitet al 2018). This discussion reveals the need to discuss the model of governance we need in the 21st century to address planetary emergencies, live within planetary boundaries in a fair and just manner, and incite positive tipping points. One challenge is generating a more significant interaction between environmental dynamics (climate change, loss of biodiversity) and sociopolitical dynamics, allowing different types of knowledge to interact effectively. In this process, achieving greater participation of the actors is necessary, democratizing the decision-making processes in defining environmental objectives. Nevertheless, governance commencing at a local, regional, national, and international scale is a necessary enabling condition. Reimagined governance will help address complex issues, currently epistemologically "gray areas" in environmental governance studies, such as understanding the role of the State, the political dimension determined by social values ​​​​and priorities, as well as the relationships between knowledge/power and those involved in the processes of change in environmental governance (Chaffin et al., 2016) (Huntjens & Kemp, 2022). Questions · What are the implications of planetary boundaries and predominant tipping points framing the governance of the Earth system? · How do the dominant scientific paradigms impact public policy? What consequences does it have for governance models? Isn't it necessary for a more robust political debate on environmental objectives? · Are we returning to the old debate of evidence-based public policies or imagining a new future and supporting policies? · Is it possible to make boundary-setting processes more democratic considering scientific knowledge science-based and people's future imaginaries? · What challenges do academics/policymakers have? Is it necessary to create transdisciplinary spaces to generate knowledge, define objectives, and design strategies for change? What academic challenge is presented to studies on governance models? Is it helpful to combine elements of competing and coexisting governance paradigms (Karpouzoglou, Dewulf, and Clark, 2016) (Partelow et al., 2020)?.

Environmental concerns are becoming increasingly central to policymaking. They require remarkable coordination among different scientific fields, government agencies and scales of government, and government and non-government actors concerning environmental issues. The proposed online panel aims to improve understanding of environmental policy styles in Global South and from a South-North perspective, particularly in addressing collective action problems such as those with environmental challenges and sustainable development. It may be argued that a “growth-mediated development” has led to improved human well-being with trends such as an increase in life expectancy, a reduction in the undernourished population, and an improvement in the number of people having access to basic health services and education (Sen, 2002)[1]. This, however, brings up the question of whether and how high economic growth can be reconciled to preserve natural resources for the upcoming generations. Recent times have seen several concerns about the future sustainability of economic growth, social upheavals, and environmental degradation patterns. Frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) bring to light two major challenges that highlight a normative dilemma in the trade-off between the need for high average annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates of 6-8% to reduce poverty and the speed of erosion of natural capital since economic growth is based on the use of natural resources. Because of the tension between economic and environmental priorities, development imperatives must integrate environmental issues with social and economic policies. In this regard, exploring environmental ‘policy style’ dynamics (Howlett & Tosun, 2021)[2] in the setting of developing countries across the institutional dimension (national policy styles, sectoral policy styles, and administrative and governance styles) and the process dimension (individual phases or stages of the policy cycle, including agenda setting, policy formulation, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation) would glean insights on how environmental issues are addressed and mainstreamed into the governance and policy-making framework. The online panel elicits empirical research and theoretical frameworks on environmental governance to characterize styles of governance in different settings of the Global South and from a South-North perspective. The main questions supporting this aim are: ·What practices, infrastructure, and organizations shape environmental policy styles and governance in different locales? ·What historical, social, and cultural factors shape the development and environmental policy styles? ·How have global concerns about environmental equity and disparities shaped environmental policy styles in the Global South? [1] Sen A K. (2002). Globalization, inequality and global protest, Development, 45(2): 11-16. [2] Howlett, M., & Tosun, J. (Eds.). (2021). The Routledge handbook of policy styles. Routledge.

In an era of digitalization and climate change, new questions are revolving around the issue of knowledge and expertise in sustainability politics. The emergence of new information and communications technologies (ICTs) and increasing skepticism in (scientific) experts have fundamentally changed the dynamics of knowledge production and circulation in society: Established knowledge and academic research on the environment and climate is questioned beyond the necessary critical debate of scientific evidence (“Fake News”, “Fake Science”, “The Death of Expertise” Nichols, 2017). At the same time, information based on personal experience and opinion can be widely disseminated through social media and increasingly influences policy processes. In addition, in the scientific community, the own role as scientists is increasingly debated leading to calls for leaving the ivory tower and acting politically by practicing civil disobedience (Capstick et al. 2022). Such discussions highlight the role of concerned scientists in society and the classic question if science and politics can (or should) be separated or not. What are the consequences of these developments for political decision-making and for the analysis of public policies in the field of sustainability? Traditionally, research on the role of knowledge for public policies has focused on tensions between the role of experts and democratic decision-making processes. This panel seeks to provide a platform to challenge, update and adapt well-established theories and approaches focusing on sustainability politics in the light of the newer developments. The high level of complexity, uncertainty and urgency pertaining to sustainability policy in times of climate change emphasizes the importance of analyzing and rethinking the implications of contested knowledge and expertise in sustainability politics. Political decision-makers depend more than ever on expert knowledge to make informed decisions on critical and interdependent phenomena affecting global sustainable development within the ecological planetary boundaries. While scientists are, however, often contradicting each-other and providing vague information based on their research, other actors are offering alternative explanations and simple solutions for environmental problems, mostly reflecting their subjective understanding of the situation. Who is considered to be an expert on sustainability and how are diverse ‘experts’ interacting with political decision-makers (e.g. role of professionals vs. laypersons as policy entrepreneurs)? Does it still make sense to separate politics from science in an age of multiple sustainability crises (climate change, biodiversity loss, etc.). Could civil disobedience or other forms of political action by scientists (scientists for future, scientist rebellion) themselves improve their influence on political decisions? Which knowledge is used and how in sustainability politics (e.g., role of transdisciplinary global networks in sustainability governance)? What are the consequences for sustainability policy, at different levels? This panel aims to deepen the debate on how contested knowledge and expertise is affecting sustainability politics. It is open to theoretical, empirical and methodological papers in order to advance our understanding on the production, integration and use of scientific evidence versus perceived realities in public policy processes on complex and urgent questions related to sustainability.

Climate change mitigation policy is increasingly focused on achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of placing the emphasis on emissions reduction as a percentage of current levels, net zero (or ‘carbon neutrality’, as the two concepts are often used interchangeably) implies a shift in thinking, towards carbon budgeting with the aim of keeping the global average temperature rise within what are considered to be ‘safe’ limits usually linked to the 2015 Paris Agreement. In the Paris Agreement, 197 signatories (countries) expressed a commitment to limit global warming to well under 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably under 1.5 degrees. Since 2015, various countries, regions and cities across the world have made ambitious and high-profile commitments to achieving net zero, with pledges covering nearly two thirds of global carbon emissions. However, credible pathways towards delivering on the ambitions are lacking. For example, in July 2022, the High Court ruled that the UK’s flagship Net Zero Strategy was unlawful as it did not provide sufficiently clear evidence on how the target will be achieved. More recently, pioneer city Copenhagen’s failure of meeting its 2025 target shed light on the difficulties involved in translating targets into policy, and actually implementing net zero transformations, at the sub-national scale. To date, there is also little research on the politics and impact of the changing discourse on climate change mitigation within the broader context of sustainability, towards a distinct focus on achieving net-zero emissions. This panel will provide space to critically examine the drivers, processes, and implications of this shift for climate politics, policy, and governance. We especially welcome empirical and/or explanatory studies that feature a clear analytical basis and contribute to theoretical debates or offer policy advice. Papers may speak to any of the following three themes (see 'Call for papers' section for more detail): 1) Policy-making for net zero 2) The effects of changing priorities, framing, and targets on sustainability 3) Mainstreaming net zero in cities and regions

To be potentially effective and successful, any climate policy framework ought to fit and mirror the realities, challenges, and policy problems for which it is designed. Since the climate change phenomenon is utterly complex and plays out at and affects various geographic scales and governance levels simultaneously, policy design must address regional, national, and local issues coherently. Moreover, climate change is often interlinked with other major policy problems, including inequality, economic crises, wars and violence, failing institutions and states, forced migration, pandemics, food/water/energy insecurity, and more. This “perfect storm” of major global crises, or “wicked problems,” often reinforcing and aggravating one another via “positive feedback loops,” seems to become a new normal for public policy and is characterized by unprecedented complexity and multi-causality, often paired with a high level of ambiguity and uncertainty (Yamu, 2014; Chapman et al., 2017; Kovacic & Di Felice, 2019; Head, 2008, 2019; Head & Alford 2015; Peters, 2017). This “crisis of crises” is particularly precarious and disruptive for the Global South, which already suffers from multiple chronic conditions requiring urgent policy intervention. Yet, climate change manifests itself as the epitome of injustice for developing countries, particularly in the Global South, since its root cause – 170 years of extractive and exploitative industrial capitalism ­– paired with colonialization and its lasting legacy is nothing that the developing world is responsible for. The Global South is at the receiving end of the worst effects of climate change, including catastrophic heatwaves, droughts, floods, famine, extreme poverty, displacement, and many more – and largely left alone by those countries that have caused and continue to cause climate change. For example, at climate change conferences, known as COPs, delegations of certain industrialized countries, as well as ruthless fossil fuel lobbyists, coerce poor countries already hit hard by climate change into defensive mode and dictate watered-down compromises that do not change the game, adding insult to injury. The 2009 promise of COP15 in Copenhagen of making available $100 billion in support of adaptation needs has still not been met even to 50 percent, while the world’s key greenhouse gas emitters still refuse to pay into a “loss and damage” fund to compensate developing countries. The overarching research questions of our panel are: · What are novel and innovative policy design and instrumentation options to effectively and sustainably address the myriad inequality, social injustices, social development, and human security issues linked to the effects of climate change on countries in the Global South? · What institutional, economic, financial, and technological policy options are available, or should be made available, to countries in the Global South to spur rapid adaptation to climate change and mitigate its worst and disastrous impacts?· How can intergovernmental organizations, global financial institutions, and donor agencies leverage and deliver green sustainable finance for rapid decarbonization, energy transitions, and technological shifts – all of which have to be combined coherently and implemented urgently and simultaneously in an integrated way?· What social policies should be prioritized in Global South countries?· How can South-South (and triangular) cooperation add to the advancement of social policy and climate policy in service of the Global South?

Uncertainty and complexity are dimensions of public policy that environmental policy scholars and practitioners have grappled with for decades. Yet, climate change has introduced theoretical and practical uncertainties that present profound challenges for water policy and governance research. Among the governance challenges policy-makers and researchers face is the need to: design and adapt policies given high levels and different kinds of uncertainty; more effectively manage the water quantity and quality interface and related challenges/conflicts; braid Indigenous ecological and governance values into management approaches; better engage new and different policy actors, enhancing democratization in water governance; broaden research to ensure that emerging scientific, interdisciplinary, and traditional knowledge informs policy research; and improve connectedness across complex scalar and temporal dimensions. This panel presents research that grapples with the implications of a climate-impacted world for water governance and policy at various scales. The session will focus on several related research questions: How is climate change forcing new frontiers in environment and water governance research? How can policy research embrace uncertainty and complexity in theory and methods, in ways that are useful to policy-makers? How can policy models and experimentation better reflect dynamism yet recognize institutional realities, actor and power asymmetries, and embedded knowledge and values? Why is focusing on policy interfaces such as climate-water so challenging, theoretically and methodologically? What can we learn from complex policy cases and comparisons? In-person session

There is deep linkage between environment, energy and mankind. This linkage is interlinked, interrelated and intertwined. Industrialization supplemented by usage of technology and excessive exploitation of natural resources across the globe had resulted in imbalance in air and water ecosystem. This imbalance could be observed from such as extreme heat wave, rising sea-levels, changes in precipitation resulting in cyclones, earthquake, flooding and droughts. These climatic changes had made worse impact on all sectors in general and agriculture in particular by increasing the vulnerabilities in food production and livelihoods of farming communities in developing countries. These vulnerabilities due to climate change could be addressed by opting renewable energy options by introducing usage of Bio, Solar, Wind and other renewable Energy sources which are meant to reduce carbon emissions and to develop all sectors. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG7) emphasized upon “To ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services and to increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix” (Kaushik Ranjan et.al) In the light of above, there is needed to examine the renewable energy policy formulation and implementation process, procedures, institutional mechanism at all levels of governance. There is need to explore the attempts of the governments to facilitate and promote usage of Solar and Bio energy for the Sustainable Agriculture practices. The proposed panel will be focused on the issues and challenges of Renewable Energy policy from multidisciplinary perspective. There are multiple and complex such as renewable energy governance such as accessibility, affordability, outreach of clean energy options. An attempt will be made to discuss the various challenges which includes policy and institutional obstacles, financial and market barriers, technological blockages awareness, education and training facilities, environmental hitches and miscellaneous. Research Questions and Relevance To what extent Government facilitate and promote the usage of Renewable Energy source through grants/subsidies/incentives to different sectors How the challenges of Transition from Conventional energy to Renewable Energy be addressed. How the renewable energy (Solar and Bio) helps to transit towards Sustainable Agriculture Green technology What are the multidimensional strategies for policy implementation for facilitating and promoting Sustainable Agriculture with reference to Global South. To examine the progress, trends, challenges in of renewable energy sector in India. To bring a transition in energy sector, inclination towards Renewable Energy sources (RES) is the best solution. The panel will analyze sustainable development and renewable energy policy and implementation from multiple aspects i.e. policy and structural mechanism, technological and socio-economic aspect and functional aspect .An attempt will be made to examine various components of renewable policy such as policies and schemes framework, their implementation, awareness programs, financial and infrastructure arrangements from central level, state level and local level. Promoting energy efficient products and combating climate change are the integral aspects of the Governments in renewable energy planning, analysis and policy making. The proposed panel will analyses the governance mechanism in improvising the solar and bio energy in agriculture while understanding the roles, capacities and relationships among the diverse actors involved in governance process.

African countries contribute the least to global climatic change but are arguably the most impacted by its negative impacts. Compared to the rest of the world, African countries also have the least number of people connected to modern energy services - electricity. Indeed, twenty four of the twenty five least electrified countries in the world are in Africa. These two problems are intertwined in several ways. For example, African countries have been historically dependent on hydroelectricity but this is an increasingly precarious energy source due to drought; African countries need to provide electricity at the least possible cost to provide services to the poor and to businesses, but the price of provision in the region is the highest in the world and the least cost electricity has often come from fossil fuels; and, African countries are being encouraged to use small-scale, renewable electricity to meet demand, but are having to do so with limited financial resources and using models of provision that are extremely complex and that have not been used in other regions of the world. Hence, at the same time as governments grapple with the challenges climate change presents, they must also seek resources and devise policy responses that meet human and economic demands for improved services. How are African governments confronting these interrelated challenges? What factors are conditioning the policy responses of African countries and are these responses effective? Indeed, what does policy effectiveness mean when the complexity of the problems are so profound and intertwined? Are African countries becoming global climate and energy policy leaders or just serving as a site for global policy experiments? Research on climate change and energy provision in Africa have followed several paths. A great deal of work has examined the impact and effectiveness of energy sector reform at the country level, focusing on policy and institutional change. Other work has considered the political economy of reform, focusing particularly on the role that private capital and multilateral and bilateral development agencies have played in facilitating investments in new renewable and non-renewable sources. A third line of more recent research is focusing on how policy choices are responding to the principles of equity and justice in service provision and climate action, interrogating whether poverty alleviation and human well-being can be imbedded at the same time as trying to rapidly adapt to climate change and meet infrastructure needs. For this in-person panel, participants are encouraged to develop hypotheses that consider how governments mediate the global and domestic tensions in their policy responses. Hypotheses could focus on the democratic norms or practices of the country; resource endowments; dependency on international or private finance; state capacity and civil society engagement or participation in policymaking.

There is great diversity across Latin American countries; however, the IPCC has identified critical risks for the region that include: food insecurity due to frequent and/or extreme droughts; risk to life and infrastructure due to floods and landslides; risk of water insecurity; risk of severe health effects due to increasing epidemics (in particular vector-borne diseases); and risks to coastal socio-ecological systems due to sea level rise. Current levels of exposure and vulnerability to these risks are related to factors such as deep inequalities, volatile politics and policies, and economies dependent on external capitals and deeply anchored in the extraction of their vast natural resources (Sánchez & Montero, 2019; Spikin & Hernández, 2016; Steinberg, 2012). These and other characteristics configure multiple opportunities for responding to climate change with measures that tackle diversity and inequality in appropriate manners.Localization is a term increasingly used in the climate policy and international development communities that refers to the processes of formulating and implementing global climate and development goals on the local-level scale (Fischer et al., 2022; Medina, 2019; Stuhldreher, 2020). Local initiatives for mitigation and adaptation to climate change are regarded as the next frontier for advancing the global goals collected in Agenda 2030 (Oosterhof, 2018). However, national and supranational level policies and actions have been deemed insufficient to generate enough progress towards reducing emissions and supporting adaptive measures, albeit the current situation could be worse without them (Sharma, 2022). In this scenario, local climate action emerges as an urgent task for communities, governments, and other actors engaged in the politics and policy of climate change at different scales.Multiple theoretical and practical questions about how to achieve localization remain unsolved. Locally-relevant actions face numerous challenges in mobilizing political and citizen support and resources and ensuring that they address problems at relevant scales (Sippel & Jenssen, 2009). Some of these issues relate to the well-known challenges of decentralization, such as the devolution of responsibilities to scales of government with limited administrative and policy capacity (Freigedo et al., 2020). Other challenges, such as combining scientific, local, and indigenous knowledge for effective adaptation measures, emerge as specific to the localization of climate actions (Blancas et al., 2020; Kronik & Verner, 2010).

This roundtable session discusses the role of “thermostatic institutions” in helping foster transformative change. Cashore and Howlett (2007) first conceptualized, and defined, thermostatic institutions as well entrenched systems of governing authority whose sole purpose is to maintain a clearly specified policy objective (just the way a house’s thermostat is designed to maintain a constant internal temperature). Drawing on the case of successful management of an endangered species, Cashore and Howlett challenged extant characterizations of policy as either being in, or out, of equilibrium, to instead focused attention on what aspects of a policy elements were changing and which were being stable or “resilient”. The discussion will focus on research agenda capable of uncovering, explaining, and prescribing thermostatic institutions with which to assist in managing the climate crisis. Our aim is to work towards building a research agenda aimed at documenting and understanding existing thermostatic institutions, with the goal of offering design principles to accelerate their development for climate related challenges.

The transition to a clean economy requires wide-ranging economic transformations. Governments all around the world are moving to clean, net-zero economies using different policy instruments, like cap-and-trade systems, carbon pricing, and investments in new technologies. The panel hopes to contribute to an evolving conversation and show how governments are moving to clean economies through public policy, focusing particularly on skills and jobs and an equitable and inclusive transition to the clean economy. The panel welcomes research from all over the world for a dynamic and wide-ranging conversation. We have three main research questions for the panel: What local, sub-national, or national policies are governments adopting to transition to a clean economy? What are the skills and jobs associated with the clean economy? What are the policies that will enable the development of these skills and prepare the workforce for these jobs? What kind of national or international policies would ensure an equitable and inclusive transition to the clean economy? On the first main research question, a number of jurisdictions have made commitments to support a transition to the clean economy. In Canada, for example, the federal government has signed its net-zero commitment into law (the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act).[i] Legislative commitments are followed by significant investments: the $15-billion Canada Growth Fund incentivizes private capital investments into decarbonization and clean technology projects.[ii] The U.S. also announced investments to scale up low carbon technologies in developing countries.[iii] To support this direction, some research focuses on cost-effective solutions to reach a Canadian net-zero economy,[iv] while others evaluate existing policy (e.g., carbon pricing).[v] On the second main research question, a net-zero transition also requires a workforce transition to equip workers with the necessary skills and supports,[vi] (e.g., Coal Transition Initiative[vii]). Recent research discusses the implications on skills and jobs: the Smart Prosperity Institute with the Diversity Institute and Future Skills Centre explores three net-zero emission scenarios for the Canadian economy and the impacts on labour demand and skills in different sectors in 2050.[viii] Understanding what skills might need to be developed, and how this varies across the world, will ensure the global workforce is prepared to support a net-zero economy. On the final research question, especially given the disproportionate impact of climate change on historically marginalized groups,[ix] there is a policy imperative to ensure that the transition to a net-zero economy creates new sustainable jobs and opportunities for all workers.[x] Some research focuses on contextualizing and framing Canada’s efforts, dubbed the “just transition.”[xi] Other research examines pathways to transition vulnerable workers into rapid-growth careers in the clean economy.[xii] There are a number of hypotheses that the panel can explore, some of which include: Innovative government policies and actions are required for the unprecedented transformation into the clean economy Governments need to address the skills gap for a rapid transition into a net-zero economy Equity-seeking groups are currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the clean economy It is simple to re-skill workers to the net-zero clean economy [i] See https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html [ii] https://budget.gc.ca/2022/report-rapport/chap3-en.html [iii] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0998 [iv] https://climatechoices.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Canadas-Net-Zero-Future_FINAL-2.pdf [v] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdae9/meta [vi] https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/climate-change/erp/Canada-2030-Emissions-Reduction-Plan-eng.pdf [vii] https://www.canada.ca/en/atlantic-canada-opportunities/services/canada-coal-transition-initiative.html [viii] https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/sites/default/files/Jobs_and_Skills_in_the_Transition_to_a_Net-Zero_Economy.pdf [ix] https://www.nccih.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/10367/Climate_Change_and_Indigenous_Peoples_Health_EN_Web_2022-03-22.pdf [x] https://www.rncanengagenrcan.ca/en/collections/just-transition [xi] https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2021/04/Roadmap%20to%20a%20Canadian%20just%20transition%20act.pdf [xii] https://www.conferenceboard.ca/e-library/abstract.aspx?did=11426

Cities in the developing countries of the Global South are struggling simultaneously with ‘brown’ issues like asymmetric access to clean water, sanitation, and drainage; ‘grey’ issues like river pollution, overdrawn groundwater, coastal degradation, and shrinking urban waterbodies; and ‘green’ issues like increasing per capita water demand and water scarcity. These developmental water challenges are further augmented by climate change making the cities highly vulnerable to various water-related disasters. The seasonal floods in Mumbai and Jakarta, severe droughts in Cape Town and Sao Paolo, depletion of groundwater aquifers in Mexico City, water shortages in Shenzhen, and all of them simultaneously in Dhaka are common occurrences now. The rapidly urbanizing cities in the Global South are mostly developing in an unplanned and unregulated manner making their governance challenging, including that of water resources. These cities are challenged by the complexity associated with population growth, climate change, socioeconomic, and environmental strains. Amidst this, the debates on urban water sustainability and resilience emphasize the dilemma between the policy and planning frameworks developed for the conventional centralized modes of urban water management dominant in the developed countries of Global North and their application to the prevailing mix of formal/informal, centralized/decentralized, and planned/ad-hoc modes of urban water management in most cities of Global South. The contemporary opinion is to use more complex frameworks, theories, and models to understand the challenges of an increasingly complex, interconnected, and uncertain world. Multiple new approaches are being developed, for example, polycentric governance (Ostrom 1990; 2010a; 2010b; Ostrom and Ostrom 2014; Ostrom 2005; McGinnis 1999); community natural resource management (Leach, Mearns, and Scoones 1999; Stephen R. Kellert 2000); distributed governance (Rogers and Hall 2003); multi-level governance (Blomquist 2009; Newig and Fritsch 2009); collaborative governance (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012); network governance (Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti 1997; Provan and Kenis 2008; Ernstson et al. 2010); and adaptive governance (Folke et al. 2005; Pahl-Wostl 2009; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2012). Although some of these approaches have different foci, they all support the broader agenda of sustainability and resilience of social-ecological systems. With much of the water management and governance yet to be planned, the Global South’s growing cities' water challenges are an opportunity to leapfrog the conventional unsustainable norms. To do so, the urban water subject of Global South requires more investigation and engagement, including the contextualization of the borrowed frameworks and the application of new approaches. The aim of this panel is to share emerging frameworks, methodologies, applications, challenges, and best practices on urban water governance from the cities of the Global South. In the process, the objective is also to compile the water problems and solutions in the region to provide an overview for future discussions and policy decisions.

Since its emergence in the United States in the early 1930s and France during the 1970s, academic interest in studying and researching public policy has followed different trajectories. Top-ranked economies cover most publications on public policies within and beyond the African continent. Most specifically, African scholars’ contributions to public policy theoretical debates and research have remained little or quasi-invisible, especially at the global level of international journals’ databases. There is also little evidence of African terrain. This panel would like to contribute to filling this gap, thereby asking why such gaps, and looking at policy implications. The panel seeks to systematically question, understand and explain the economic divides in producing public policy research and publications at the international level. Indeed, although objects and subjects may be ontologically distinct, the production of public policy research is analyzed as a public policy per se through three directions. First, it addresses the role (activity) of funding and sponsoring in contributing to the visibility of academic publications and contributions to the field. Second, it tackles the individual and collective actions of governmental and non-governmental agencies, researchers, heads of political science departments, and faculty members in sponsoring, promoting, and sourcing academic publications in public policy. Third, it interrogates the types of literature promoted and used in researching and analyzing public policies in Africa. This panel is an interdisciplinary venue. It is open to contributions from different political and social sciences fields using public policy as an area of research in Africa: economics, anthropology, political sociology, public administration, political economy, international relations, etc. It is open but not limited to concrete case studies or empirical papers addressing the research and production policies of public policy research papers or books in African universities. In particular, we would happily welcome articles that focus on researched topics within specific universities or countries and publishing mediums, sponsorships, the role of governmental and non-governmental agencies in sponsoring research in public policies, etc. Last but not least, proposals may also focus on specific studies while describing how they use or not contemporary literature or theories on public policies.

The policy mobility literature (policy transfer, diffusion, etcetera) has generated rich insights regarding the conditions, mechanisms and processes of international policy transmission in diverse fields such as economic policy, environmental policy or gender policy. The main focus in the literature has been on successful transfers and “translation” or local adaptation to domestic institutional configurations. While there is a strong policy transfer success bias in the literature, reasons for failure in individual countries have also been addressed. The role of private actors such as international consultancies or global think tanks in policy transfer have lately been recognized alongside public actors, which challenges the traditional methodological nationalism of modelling “export” and “import with local adaption/translation” of policy transfers. What is still missing in the literature, however, is work on more ambitious efforts to contest policy mobility by way of transnational efforts to obstruct, roll back or redirect policies travelling across borders. In addition to a novel focus on policy transfer contestation we aim to push the policy mobility conversation to include (global) policy transfer modification, attenuation and “failure” due to broader and stronger resistance against transfer efforts operating within and across borders. A fresh focus on transnational actor and power constellations, advocacy alliances and discourse coalitions, as well as policy field conditions and the range of objectives, is needed to better understand the reasons for both success and failure of policy mobility. Success and failure of course also depend on normative perspective: If actors succeed to secure tax privileges or investor protection in many countries, trade unions and social movement activists may consider counter campaigns (like ATTAC’s Tobin tax) much like fossil corporations and their allies in think tanks try to undermine ambitious climate action. It is well known that climate denial campaigns used the playbook developed to prevent stronger regulation of smoking, but we do know much about other dimensions of learning from past experience of friend or foe. Pal, Leslie A. (2020) Policy transfer and resistance: Proposals for a new research agenda. In: O. Porto de Oliveira, C. Osorio Gonnet, S. Montero, and C. K. da S. Leite (eds.) Latin America and Policy Diffusion: From Import to Export. (New York: Routledge 2020), pp. 183-201. Plehwe, Dieter (2022) Think tanks and the politics of climate change. In: Donald E. Abelson/Christopher J. Rastrick (Hg.): Handbook on Think Tanks in Public Policy, S. 150-165. Handbooks on Research in Public Policy . DOI: 10.4337/9781789901849.00022 Stone, Diane, Leslie A. Pal, and Osmany Porto de Oliveira (2021) Private consultants and policy advisory organizations: a blind spot on policy transfer research. In: Osmany Porto de Oliveira (ed.) Handbook of Policy Transfer, Diffusion and Circulation. (Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar 2021), pp. 173–195.

Despite 20th century predictions to the contrary, the prevalence of informal work has not diminished over time and in fact remains a critical issue in the 21st century. Today, work in the informal economy comprises over 60% of the global workforce, and is characterized by serious decent work deficits and low resilience to economic crises. Social security is a longstanding human right, and in recent years, the global community has acknowledged the need to design and implement social protection systems that meet the persistent reality of a large population of working poor people engaged in the informal economy. Yet, as of 2020, only 47% per cent of the global population were effectively covered by at least one social protection benefit. This proposed panel seeks to explore and highlight emerging and evidence-based approaches to dismantling persistent barriers to effective social protection of informal workers, including but not limited to: policy design, low levels of awareness and trust, administrative hurdles, and lack of worker representation and organization. The informal economy is broad and diverse – it includes dependent waged employment and own account work, rural and urban work, and employment across economic sectors in diverse contexts around the world. To formalize all workers’ right to social protection, it’s critical that researchers and policymakers identify specific obstacles that different types of informal workers face, hypothesize and test measures that can overcome these obstacles, and ultimately develop a set of evidence-based practices for policy design and implementation to share with policymakers and practitioners around the globe. This panel will be chaired by researchers from the WORLD Policy Analysis Center (WORLD) at the University of California, Los Angeles. WORLD works to strengthen equal rights and opportunities by (1) identifying effective policy approaches, (2) improving the quantity and quality of global comparative policy indicators available to policymakers, citizens, civil society, and researchers, and (3) working in partnership to support positive, evidence-based change in communities and countries worldwide. This panel will focus on empirical approaches to better understanding and identifying barriers to social protection coverage of informal workers, and which approaches—national or otherwise—are successfully being designed and implemented to advance access to decent work and social protection.

Studies and students of public policy have proliferated around the globe. Arguably, the field of research may have reached a point where regional contributions are now part of the mainstream of studies. Despite the richness in scope and breadth of the studies about public policy, further ways to push the knowledge frontiers of this field are still to be explored. This panel invites authors to engage with the question about the Latin American regional contribution to the field. As in many other fields of knowledge, authors in the region may have offered key developments to the field, either on the grounds of theory, methodology, or even further, in terms of an innovative epistemological approach. However, such voices may have been eclipsed or overseen somehow due to a recurrent centralization of knowledge production, placing greater emphasis on authors and ideas that are able to publish in the US and Europe.

Type of panel: Onsite There is growing evidence that drug prohibition - the criminalization of illicit drug use and possession coupled with a reliance on the criminal justice system as a primary intervention - fails to deter drug use and has only served to criminalize drug users (Government of Canada, 2016). This has reinforced the over-policing of racialized communities and the overrepresentation of marginalized communities in criminal justice systems (Khenti, 2014). However, there has been a noticeable shift over the last several years. In May 2022, in the face of an ongoing opioid crisis, British Columbia was granted a three-year exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which effectively decriminalized possession of small amounts of illicit street drugs. Internationally, Portugal’s decriminalization of all illicit drugs has reduced drug-law offenses, judicial costs, and drug-related deaths (Felix, Tavares & Portugal, 2017). In 2020, the state of Oregon also decriminalized possession and personal use of all illicit drugs. Increasingly, substance use and addiction is being framed as a public health issue – not a criminal one. The expanding discourse on decriminalization is connected to shifts in public attitudes, which has considerable implications on the direction of future policy making (MacQuarrie & Brunelle, 2022). Decriminalization exists along a continuum of approaches to drug use, ranging from criminalization to legalization. Under decriminalization frameworks, drug use and possession are still prohibited, but sanctions for this conduct do not fall under criminal law - they are considered administrative offenses (Felix, Tavares & Portugal, 2017). This panel focuses on decriminalization in lieu of other policy approaches as this represents the emergent direction of many global jurisdictions. It is important to emphasize that decriminalization is not a uniform approach, with significant variation in the design and structure of models through which it has been implemented. These models have considerable heterogeneity and lack articulation around their different definitions and details (Greer et al., 2022). Indeed, decriminalization is a complex issue in that it also bears the risk for pitfalls or unintended adverse consequences (Fischer, Boyd and Brochu 2021, 13). While calls for decriminalization are growing, they should be cautiously analyzed and scrutinized with an understanding that decriminalization frameworks cannot always be transferred from one setting to another (Fischer, Boyd & Brochu, 2021). There is a gap in the literature regarding the various design features of decriminalization frameworks (Greer et al., 2022), and this panel aims to address this gap by focusing on the differing approaches to decriminalization and will include domestic and international perspectives of drug policy. In this panel, we will explore the following research questions: 1. What are the politics of decriminalization, and how does this shape policy? 2. Which decriminalization frameworks have been effective in reducing harms associated with drug use? Are these frameworks transferable? 3. How has decriminalization policy been implemented? What challenges must be considered? 4. How have different jurisdictions approached the challenges of evaluating policy? References Felix, S., Tavares, A., & Portugal, P. (2017). Going after the addiction, not the addicted: The impact of drug decriminalization in Portugal. Institute of Labor Economics. https://docs.iza.org/dp10895.pdf Fischer, B., Boyd, N., & Brochu, S. (2021). Proposals for decriminalization of illicit drug use: Considering a combination of deja-vu, diversion and devil-with-many-details for health-oriented policy reform. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 67(1), pp. 13-15. Government of Canada. (2016). Towards the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/healthy-canadians/migration/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/legalization-marijuana-legalisation/alt/legalization-marijuana-legalisation-eng.pdf Greer, A., Bonn, M., Shane, C., Stevens, A., Tousenard, N., & Ritter, A. (2022). The details of decriminalization: Designing a non-criminal response to the possession of drugs for personal use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 102, 103605. Khenti, A. (2014). The Canadian war on drugs: Structural violence and unequal treatment of Black Canadians. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, pp. 190-195. MacQuarrie, A.L., & Brunelle, C. (2022). Emerging attitudes regarding decriminalization: Predictors of pro-drug decriminalization attitudes in Canada. Journal of Drug Issues, 52(1), pp. 114-127.

Background and Scientific/Policy Relevance Neoliberalism is a “theory of political-economic practice based on the idea that human well-being can be advanced by liberal individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade” (Harvey, 2005, p. 2). “It has permeated into our ways of life and our common-sense thought about ourselves and the world” (Harvey, 2005, p. 3) According to Mudge (2008), neoliberalism is an “oft-invoked and ill-defined concept in the social sciences” (p. 703). Ward and England (2007) argue that research should further nuance the neoliberalization process in different contexts and fields (England & Ward, 2016, p. 21). Defining neoliberalism and its impact on health policy making is critical. In health policies, neoliberalism has merged with behavioural and biomedical notions of health based on personal responsibility (Crawford, 1980) and market logic in provisions of health care (Evans et al., 2017). We see the “emergence of a shadow paradigm which might be termed a ‘responsibilization’ paradigm…whereby the welfare state is being reshaped less around collective redistribution and more around individualized citizens seemingly empowered to take charge of their own affairs” (Orsini 2007, p. 349). In health policy making, neoliberalization has taken the form of privatization, restructuring, contracting out, and offloading to the home, community and non-profit sectors. Scholars have argued that neoliberalism has led to a widening of inequality and contributed to inequity in health (e.g., Coburn, 2010). Neoliberalism is however not a taken-for-granted in health policy making but rather conceptualized as contested terrain. There are notable critiques of neoliberalization in the social sciences from post structural theorists such as Wendy Brown (Brown, 2016; 2017); Orsini and Smith 2007) who criticizes the neoliberal project for its focus on “the human subject as a speck of capital”. We also see policy critiques arising from critical policy studies (Fischer, Torgerson, Durnova, and Orsini, 2017) and feminist political economy (Folbre 2001; Bezanson and Luxton; Bhattacharya 2017). These critiques lay integral groundwork in formulating alternatives to neoliberalization in health policy. General Objectives and Research Questions The aim of this panel is to provide nuanced accounts and comparisons of neoliberalism in health and social services in multiple contexts both globally and locally. We also seek to locate everyday sites of resistance and to imagine alternatives (Sparke, 2016) to neoliberalization in health policy. References Bhattacharya, Tithi (ed). (2017) Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression.Pluto Press. London, U.K. Brown, Wendy. (2016). Neoliberalism, Human Capital and Austerity Politics. Constellations. 23 (1):1-14. Brown, Wendy. (2019). In the ruins of neoliberalism: The rise anti-democratic politics in the West. Columbia University Press. New York, NY. Coburn, David. (2010). Health and Health Care: A Political Economy Perspective. In T. Bryant, D. Raphael, M, Rioux (eds), Staying Alive: Critical Perspectives on Health, Illness, and Health Care, 65-91. Toronto: CSPI Crawford, Robert. (1980). Healthism and the medicalization of everyday life. International Journal of Health Services : planning, administration, evaluation, 10(3), 365–388. Evans, Brian, T. Richmond., & J. Shields. (2017). Structuring neoliberal governance: The nonprofit sector, emerging new modes of control and the marketisation of service delivery. Policy & Society, 24(1), 73-97. doi:10.1016/S1449-4035(05)70050-3 Folbre, Nancy. (2001). The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. The New Press. New York, NY. Fischer, Frank, Douglas Torgerson, Anna Durnova and Michael Orsini (ed). (2017) Handbook of Critical Policy Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, U.K. Harvey, David. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press Mudge, S. L. (2008). What is neoliberalism? Socio-Economic Review, 6, 703-731Mudge, S. L. (2008). What is neoliberalism? Socio-Economic Review, 6, 703-731. Orsini, Michael (2007) “Discourses in Distress: From 'Health Promotion’ to ‘Population Health’ to ‘Are you responsible for your own health?” Chapter 16 in Critical Policy Studies ed. by Michael Orsini and Miriam Smith. (pp.347-363). UBC Press. Vancouver, B.C. Orsini, Michael and Miriam Smith. (2007).(ed) Critical Policy Studies. UBC Press. Vancouver, B.C. Rose, Nicholas. (1996). Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason, 37-64. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sparke, M. (2016). Health and the embodiment of neoliberalism. In S. Springer, K. Birch, J. MacLeavy. (Eds). The Handbook of Neoliberalism (pp. 237-251). Routledge Ward, K. & England, K. (2007). Introduction: reading neoliberalization. In K. England & K. Ward. Neoliberalization: States, Networks, Peoples. (pp. 1-22). Blackwell.

The management of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a central topic for research in policy analysis since its beginning (Colfer, 2020; Weible et al., 2020). These research works studied the decision-making process and showed up the special role of expertise and advisory bodies (Cairney & Wellstead, 2021). Consequently, a special interest developed in not only studying the design, adoption, and implementation of policy responses to crisis, but also how these varied with the policy advisory system that supported policymaking (Galanti & Saracino, 2021; Hadorn, Sager, Mavrot, Malandrino, & Ege, 2022). The aim of this onsite panel is to discuss the specific perspective and added-value of the policy advice approach to study the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy advice as a research topic investigates how policy actors get support in the conduct of public policy. It looks at both the provision and use of advice by policy actors. Policy advisors can act as agenda-setters or provide useful and relevant information throughout the policy process about the merits of policy options and their potential to deliver the desired outcomes. They can formulate recommendations or opinions about future courses of government action and propose an analysis of problems and/or assessment of possible solutions (Halligan, 1993). Nowadays, the government policy analytical capacity relies on a policy advisory system which extends far beyond the borders of the public sphere. The policy advisory system is defined as ‘the interlocking set of actors and organizations with unique configurations in each sector and jurisdiction that provides recommendations for action to policy-makers’ (Craft & Wilder, 2017, p. 215), and it encompasses both in-house expertise from the public service, central agencies, and partisan ministerial advisers, and external expertise from consultants, commissions of inquiry, and selected special advisory bodies composed of experts appointed by the government (Squevin & Aubin, 2022).

The aim of this panel is to discuss and understand what health care systems around the world have learnt from dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and how this experience has affected/is affecting the development of health systems reform. The panel focuses in particular on the health policymaking process (the role of different actors, their interaction, the relation with other areas of public policies, the decision-making process, the impact of contextual factors, etc.) in order to understand and investigate which elements and actors drove these processes and which lessons have been learnt to improve health systems’ resilience and health systems’ governance around the world. The panel is also aimed at discussing and sharing experiences of health systems’ reforms that have been developed to improve health care systems and health policymaking in the light of the lessons learnt from the pandemic. While the panel is open to discuss the multiple dimensions of these lessons and experiences, its main focus is on their ‘policy’ implications and it is aimed at addressing the following questions: - How institutional settings and health systems’ organizational models affected or have been affected by the way in which different countries responded to the challenges posed by the pandemic? - Which has been the role of different actors in shaping, developing and implementing specific policies (like vaccine rollouts, restrictions, organization of health services delivery, reduction of health inequalities)? - Do lessons that have been learnt led to rethinking and reforming health care systems? Which are the key aims of these reforms (for example, better integration between different actors of levels of the system, better use of available resources, better organization of services, etc.)? This panel will provide public policy scholars from all over the world with the opportunity to share and discuss experiences, challenges and lessons on the health policymaking process (from its formulation to its implementation) and on its impact on health systems improvement and health systems reforms. The panel welcomes papers with both a ‘single country’ or a comparative perspective, in order to facilitate reciprocal learning between different countries and to offer a contribution to the policy, societal and academic debate concerning health systems developments and health systems reforms. Papers focused on both developed and developing countries are welcome.

The aim of this panel is to investigate and develop a better understanding of how different community and public health and social systems have responded to the needs of the most vulnerable populations and document key lessons that can improve systems' sustainability and resilience, especially in charting a recovery path from the COVID-19 pandemic. A progressive transition from pandemic response to recovery will require a renewed focus on building sustainable, resilient health and social systems with a renewed focus on equity as the pandemic has widened the equity divide. The pandemic has been characterized as a health, social and economic crisis resulting in mass unemployment, increased impoverishment, and exacerbation of longstanding racial, gender and health inequities. The disproportionate impact has been most felt by vulnerable groups like refugees, asylum seekers and migrants without status, elderly people, those with ill health and comorbidities, or homeless or under-housed people, but also, more broadly, socio-economically marginalized people who have been struggling to cope financially, mentally, or physically with the crisis. To reduce the vulnerability factors experienced by the most marginalized populations, the public and community sectors need to engage in joint coordination efforts called intersectoral collaboration. This collaboration ensures holistic care provisioning, inclusive of health and psychosocial support, addresses food security, as well as educational and employment assistance. The COVID-19 pandemic has indeed underscored that coordinated action across sectors is vital for addressing the underlying drivers and determinants of health and social inequities and for building stronger and more resilient communities beyond pandemic realities. New interventions were launched in the context of the health crisis to reduce inequities through an intersectoral approach, to improve coordination in service planning and delivery. This panel focuses on learning and documenting intersectoral collaborations and their innovative potential at the local/municipal, provincial/state or national level to generate a responsive policy response and focuses on the following questions: - How are different community and public health and social systems addressing the widening gaps in equity at local, regional, state/provincial and national levels? - How have the needs of marginalized populations been taken into consideration to develop responsive services? - What have been the innovative and promising practices that have promoted citizen participation/engagement? - What have been new and emergent collaborative governance processes and practices that encouraged trust creation and redistributed power to guide open innovations? - How have new intersectoral partnerships emerged and developed in order to exploit opportunities and prospects for resilience and sustainability? The panel welcomes papers that focus at different levels- local, regional, provincial or national level or draw a comparative perspective to discuss and learn from different settings and offer solutions and contributes to knowledge systems for policy, societal and academic debates. The overall aim of the panel is to advantage knowledge on what equity-focused COVID-19 responses look like at the local, regional and national levels and highlight feasible and tangible actions that can be taken to promote sustainability in health and social systems responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

High numbers of people moving around the globe has drawn attention to migrant needs across a range of areas. In recent years, hundreds of thousands of refugees have arrived in host countries across the world, often in communities that have not experienced high levels of immigration before. The ability and willingness of these countries to address the needs of newcomers are being challenged on a number of fronts. Migrant families face a wide range of challenges along the journey as well as during the transition to life in the host community. Reasons for leaving their home countries are varied, but many newcomers have experienced traumatic circumstances including exposure to war, violence, extreme poverty, natural disasters, religious persecution, and political repression. The resettlement process of finding housing, suitable employment, entering the school system, and learning the language of the host country add new challenges for this population. In addition, migrants are increasingly encountering attitudes of discrimination and exclusion. These pre-migration and settlement experiences coupled with difficulties in acculturation to a new country can lead to severe and long-lasting health issues. There is growing recognition and concern regarding the health care needs of refugees and recent immigrants, given the high levels of trauma and stress people have experienced, combined with the lower access and utilization of many health services. The policies that lead to migration, direct the journey, and shape the settlement process effect all aspects of the experiences of migrants. These policies perpetuate inequities and social exclusion in a multitude of ways, in all aspects of the lives of migrating people. Examples include access to health and social care, housing, education, as well processes of gaining legal formal status, or recognition of education or professional experience in the receiving country. These all have a profound impact on the health of migrant and their families. This panel will focus on the global, regional and national policy contexts that shape the everyday experiences of health and health care of migrating people and families.

Does Government Policy Matter in Responding to a Pandemic? The political system of Canada is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy, with three levels of government, each with their own responsibilities: (i) the federal government or the government of Canada, (ii) the provincial and territorial governments, and (iii) the municipal or local governments. No country is more similar to the United States of America (U.S.) than Canada, whose economy and culture are closely intertwined with the U.S. Yet faced with a life-threatening pandemic of historic proportions, Canada showed far greater success in protecting the lives of its people than the U.S. (Karabel, 2022). The Canadian health system provides access to publicly funded health services to its entire population. Universal coverage is a strong principle and an objective of this public health policy. According to one of the main principles of the Canada Health Act (the federal legislation for publicly funded health care insurance), each person living on the country’s territory is provided with public care insurance that covers all medical treatment considered necessary. Canada implemented public health measures, such as social distancing, when hospitalization and death rates due to the pandemic were still lower than in other countries; each province and territory adapted and implemented specific measures (Tchounwou,et al. 2021). The United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. Under the US Constitution, Congress has the sole power to authorize funding out of tax revenue and may do so for those purposes enumerated in the Constitution, including to provide funding for the general welfare of the United States. (U.S. Constitution). Within Congress’s is the power to respond to disasters and public health emergencies; however, during times of crisis, such as the coronavirus pandemic, many emergency powers have been delegated by Congress to the President. (Lindsay, & Webster, 2020, (U.S. Library of Congress, 2020).In the United States the coronavirus pandemic prompted a comprehensive government response from the federal, state, and local governments. The federal government enacted legislation to stimulate the economy and promote a robust public health response. The crisis response in the United States was generally organized from the ground up, with local governments taking the lead with the support of their respective state governments and, in larger emergency situations, the federal government. Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea demonstrated best practices in managing the COVID-19 pandemic (Bremmer, 2021). The Government of the Republic of China (ROC), is the national government of the Republic of China whose de facto territory currently consists of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and other island groups in the "free area". Governed by the Democratic Progressive Party, the president is the head of state. Today, the ROC is the de facto government of Taiwan; whereas the People Republic of China (PRC) is the de facto government over Mainland China. However, each government claims to be the legitimate government of all China de jure (Chen et al., 2020). The ROC State Council established a national, multisectoral, joint prevention and control mechanism and required all levels of government to establish corresponding prevention and control headquarters, with the head of local government as director, and heads of ports, health, transportation, public security, and information departments as members. Every school, work unit, and community established a working group against covid-19. Management was based on a grid: communities were subdivided with buildings as subunits and their managers responsible for ensuring strict fulfilment of control measures. Actively finding patients and their management means early detection, treatment of every patient in isolation, and identifying close contacts of patients for placement in 14 days of individual, mandatory quarantine with periodic PCR testing. Early detection and isolation of patients was the single most effective technique for containing the virus because it interrupted transmission chains before they could lengthen (Chen et al. 2021). In Taiwan Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) was assembled to combat the COVID-19 pandemic on 20 January 2020. The commander of the CECC was the Taiwanese Ministry of Health and Welfare minister, and the organization's members included experts from various fields. The CECC executed several strategies to reduce disease transmission and its government-guided strategies may have contributed to mitigating the disease's spread (Chen et al, 2020). In Singapore a unitary parliamentary constitutional republic, the dominant People’s Action Party (PAP) has been the only ruling party to form a government since independence. Singapore has established effective rule-of-law, low corruption and effective government. Singapore's approach to managing this pandemic can be summarised as follows; Establishment of a network of Public Health Preparedness Clinics (PHPCs) which are primary health clinics established in times of national need. Hospitalise and isolate the infected. Trace contacts rigorously. Make social messaging clear. (Tan et al., 2021). The Government of South Korea is the union government of the Republic of Korea, created by the Constitution of South Korea as the executive, legislative and judicial authority of the republic. The president acts as the head of state and is the highest figure of executive authority in the country, followed by the prime minister and government ministers in decreasing order (World Atlas, 2019). The basic principles of the South Korean government's response to COVID-19 are transparency, openness, and democracy. The government has attempted to minimize all restrictions on citizens through transparent public disclosure of all information and maintaining the borderline without closure. As the number of patients gradually increased, the Korea Centerfor Disease Control and Prevention declared these outbreaks a Public Health Emergency and raised thenational crisis warning level to “serious (red).” (Kang, 202).

This aim of this panel is to explore issues of governance in health systems with respect to various dimensions and phases of the Covid-19 crisis. The Covid-19 pandemic has put health systems under unprecedented pressure; with impacts that can be seen as a ‘polycrisis’ (Tooze 2001). As the pandemic intersected with economic and social crises to create multiple and compounding risks, existing strains and inequities were exacerbated and service capacities reached their limits. The success of national responses has relied on effective forms of governance (Assefa Y, et al 2022). Governance – including the norms, structures, actors, institutions, and formal and informal relationships that shape authority and action in a system – has been at the centre of public policy analysis of the responses to the pandemic. We aim to bring together and deepen this scholarly work to analyse the policy consequences of the pandemic in three crises of governance: 1. Policy-making at the centre – including state capacities in decision making, leadership, the (mis)use of evidence, and implementation (McConnell and Stark 2021). Issues may include the legacies of neo-liberalism and ‘hollowing’ of state capacities or the effects of more devolved, multi-level government. (Weiss and Thurbon 2022). We explore: To what extent have broader shifts in governance and public management manifested in responses to the Covid-19 pandemic? 2. Governance as a problem of systems integration. The crisis exposed gaps, overlaps and conflicts in health systems across multiple lines; including centralised vs local decision making; public vs private services; bio-medical vs social responses and primary vs tertiary care. Issues include how forms of governance shaped health system responses, enabling and integrating effective surveillance, testing and vaccination, public health communication and service sustainability. (Weitzberg et al (2022), Sundararaman T et al 2021). We explore: What have been the features of (in)effective health system governance with respect to integration, coordination and equity during various phases of the Covid-19 crisis? 3. Post-pandemic policy lessons and health reform. The extent to which that pandemic, as an external shock, has acted as a catalyst for health reform beyond pre-pandemic norms is currently unfolding (Bali, He, Ramesh 2022).We explore: In what ways has the Covid-19 pandemic catalysed reform of health systems, and in what ways have health systems been unreceptive to reform? Assefa Y, Gilks CF, Reid S et al (2022) Analysis of the Covid-19 Pandemic: Lessons towards a more effective response to public health emergencies. Globalization and Health 18 (10). Bali AS, He AJ, Ramesh M (2022), Health Policy and Covid-19: path dependency and trajectory’, Policy and Society 41 (1) 83-95. McConnell A and Stark A (2021), Understanding policy responses to COVID-19: the stars haven’t fallen from the sky for scholars of public policy, European Journal of Public Policy, 28 (8) 1115-1130. Sundararaman T, Muraleedharan VR, Ranjan A 2021 Pandemic Resilience and Health Systems Preparedness: Lessons from Covid-19 for the 21st century’, Journal of economic and Social development 23 (Supp 2) s.290-300. Weiss L and Thurbon E (2022) Explaining Divergent National Responses to COVID-19: An enhanced state capacity framework’, New Political Economy, 27 (4). Weitzberg et al (2022) Early Health System Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic in Mediterranean Countries. Health Policy 126 (7) 722

The objective of this panel is to understand the public policy role of non-profit organizations (NPOs) in the context of COVID-19, how this role was affected by pre-pandemic (non) policymaking on the NPO sector and identify new research agendas in the field of public policy on state-non-profit sector relations. NPOs are crucial social service delivery, policy advocacy, mutual support, recreational and expressive organizations yet as a sector, have not been a central focus of public policymaking practice and research. This panel welcomes both conceptual and empirical papers that seek to invigorate a research agenda in the field of political science and public policy on NPO-public sector relations. The pandemic has brought social service systems, already weakened by decades of neoliberal austerity, into a state of crisis with devastating consequences for the most marginalized members of society. In this context of state failure to provide basic services and supports to all population groups, NPOs were relied upon by public sector agencies and residents alike to fill gaps on the frontlines. In some cases, core funding and human resource support, long advocated for by the NPO sector, flooded in from governments at all levels (Shields and Abu Alrob 2020; Lasby and Barr 2021). Evidence suggests that this support was ad hoc and uneven as it did not benefit all NPOs equally depending on size, degree of professionalization, and policy domain of focus. The NPO sector is now at increased risk due to COVID-19 burnout, an HR crisis driven by staff turnover and poor renumeration, negative inflation impacts on an already weakened funding structure, and the threat of a return to government austerity measures (ONN and AFO 2022). It is thus essential to acknowledge and understand how existing inequities within the NPO sector affected the state-NPO relationship during various waves of COVID-19 and as we move towards a post-pandemic period. What is important here is that there was, in a period of crisis, a reinforced recognition that the state needed NPOs, and that state support enabled the sector’s capacity to reach and assist people in need. The mutual relationship between the state and non-profit sector in a time of crisis is not surprising to those who have long argued that in a mixed welfare model, the NPO sector has always been a significant social service provider and employer (Salamon 2015; Evans and Shields 2018). This fact has, in large measure, gone under the radar of both the state and the political science discipline (Joy and Shields 2020). In the Canadian context, there is no public policy and bureaucratic apparatus that coherently governs the relationship between the state and non-profit sector, despite fits and starts at the federal level (Laforest 2011). Furthermore, smaller organizations who specialize in advocating for and supporting marginalized populations in cities have been particularly under-examined (Phillips et al. 2021). This panel welcomes papers that study the unique nature of community-based NPOs and their care and mutual support role in the pandemic and beyond.

In the last four decades, markets have acquired a central role in the provision of different public services in many countries worldwide. In the case of the education sector, the combination of private provision, choice, and competition has become a characteristic feature of different national educational systems. Policies such as public subsidies for private schools, open enrolment schemes or incentives to promote competition between schools have expanded dramatically over this period. Markets in education have been promoted based on a variety of justifications, mainly on their capacity to promote a more effective provision of educational service, but also in a more efficient manner. Other arguments that have frequently accompanied the adoption of education markets are the need to diversify the school supply and foster pedagogical innovation. Regarding equity, advocates of education markets have frequently argued that socially disadvantaged students would benefit the most from these positive outcomes, improving, therefore, educational opportunities. However, the available evidence about the impact on these dimensions is mixed and remains inconclusive. While some studies show that these policies have increased the diversity, innovation and effectiveness of education systems, others consider that these effects have been null or even negative, particularly regarding equity (i.e., achievement gap, school segregation, social stratification between schools or exclusion of disadvantaged groups of students). This diversity of outcomes and impacts has raised interest in the role of regulatory environments in mediating the impact of markets in education. There is indeed growing consensus that, to some extent, rules, norms, and other policy design components can determine the impact of these policies on the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity dimensions. Accordingly, different countries have recently experimented with regulatory reforms oriented at improving the outcomes of education markets - or at least mitigating their more detrimental effects, particularly in terms of equity. However, despite growing policy and academic interest that regulatory changes could play in mediating the impact of markets in education, this has not been the object of a systematic examination from a public policy perspective. Another important knowledge gap in this area refers to the specific regulatory dimensions and instruments that can determine the impact of regulatory environments. The panel aims to fill these research gaps by bringing together scholars who have conducted research in different contexts on how regulatory environments and education policy options can mediate market impacts, with a particular focus on equity effects. Specifically, the panel pretends to answer three main research questions: 1) What is the role of regulatory environments in determining the impact of markets in education?; 2) What has been the impact of regulatory reform processes in different contexts to tackle the negative impacts of education markets?; 3) How do education actors enact and recontextualize regulatory reforms, and how this mediates reform impact? The scientific relevance of the panel will lie in providing interdisciplinary and comparative analyses that shed light on the role and impact of regulatory environments for educational markets. Panel modality: On-line

Quality care is key to the safety, wellbeing, and socialization of children (Norman et al., 2012). In contrast, lack of supervision may result in unintentional injuries and other negative effects for children and parents (Baldry et al., 2019; Damashek et al., 2014; Flanagan et al., 2019; Morrongiello et al., 2012; Rouse & Schwebel, 2019), including reporting to child welfare authorities (Ruiz-Casares et al., 2012; Sedlak et al., 2010). Child neglect is, however, characterized by the breakdown of the social organization around children and parents, rather than parental behaviors alone (Garbarino & Abramowitz, 1992; Lacharité, 2014). In fact, oftentimes, child care arrangements such as leaving children home alone result from low social support or lack of accessible child care services rather than culture or parental choice (Morantz et al., 2013; Ruiz-Casares & Heymann, 2009). A recent review on child supervision in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) (Miconi et al., 2018) identified family-friendly policies, extended social support networks, and increased public awareness among some of the potential facilitators of adequate supervision in these settings. Furthermore two groups of policies have been recognized of particular importance for families with young children: labour and education (Heymann et al., 2011). Indeed there is accumulating evidence of the beneficial effects of paid parental leave on parental, child, and family wellbeing in high-income countries (HIC) (Nandi et al., 2018) and LMIC (Heymann et al., 2013; Nandi et al., 2016). In fact, enacting or strengthening paid leave policies has been advanced as a key strategy to achieve several Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (Heymann et al., 2017). It can also increase father’s involvement in childcare and education (Haas & Hwang, 2008). Nevertheless, since most of the published evidence originates in HIC, it is unclear how these findings apply to LMIC. Moreover, even in LMIC where granting paid maternity or gender-neutral parental leave is regulated, coverage is problematic, and solutions are scarce for the poorest families (Vilar-Compte et al., 2019). Similarly about half of all countries do not provide early childhood care and education (ECCE) services for children under 3 years (UNESCO, 2006). ECCE services are key to supervise young children during work hours while contributing to children’s development and school readiness in HIC (Cortázar, 2015) and LMIC (Aboud et al., 2013; Li et al., 2016). Therefore, this panel is interested in papers that will look at how family-support policies contribute to enhancing child supervision and development in LMIC (e.g., by increasing parental availability to care or by providing quality substitute caregiving options). More specifically we are interested in furthering our understanding of the role of public policies in supporting child supervision and development in LMIC as well as the socio-ecological factors that facilitate or hinder their implementation in these contexts. References Aboud, F. E., Singla, D. R., Nahil, M. I., & Borisova, I. (2013, 2013/11/01/). Effectiveness of a parenting program in Bangladesh to address early childhood health, growth and development. Social Science & Medicine, 97, 250-258. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.020 Baldry, A. C., Sorrentino, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2019, 2019/01/01/). Cyberbullying and cybervictimization versus parental supervision, monitoring and control of adolescents' online activities. Children and Youth Services Review, 96, 302-307. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.058 Cortázar, A. (2015, 2015/07/01/). Long-term effects of public early childhood education on academic achievement in Chile. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32, 13-22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.003 Dahlblom, K., Herrara, A. R., Peña, R., & Dahlgren, L. (2009). Home Alone: Children as Caretakers in León, Nicaragua. Children & Society, 23(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00141.x Damashek, A., Drass, S., & Bonner, B. L. (2014, 2014/07/01). Child Maltreatment Fatalities Related to Inadequate Caregiver Supervision. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(11), 1987-2001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513515951 Flanagan, I. M. L., Auty, K. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2019, 2019/07/01/). Parental supervision and later offending: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 47, 215-229. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.06.003 Garbarino, J., & Abramowitz, R. H. (1992). The ecology of human development. In J. Garbarino, J. L. Abramowitz, M. T. Gaboury, n. L. Galambos, A. C. Garbarino, K. Kistelny, F. N. Long, & M. C. Plantz (Eds.), Children and families in the social environment (pp. 11-33). Aldine de Gruyter. Haas, L., & Hwang, C. P. (2008, 2008/02/01). The Impact of Taking Parental Leave on Fathers’ Participation In Childcare And Relationships With Children: Lessons from Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 11(1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668800701785346 Heymann, J., Earle, A., & McNeill, K. (2013, 2013/03/18). The Impact of Labor Policies on the Health of Young Children in the Context of Economic Globalization. Annual Review of Public Health, 34(1), 355-372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114358 Heymann, J., Raub, A., & Earle, A. (2011, Sep-Oct). Creating and using new data sources to analyze the relationship between social policy and global health: the case of maternal leave. Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974), 126 Suppl 3(Suppl 3), 127-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549111260S317 Heymann, J., Sprague, A. R., Nandi, A., Earle, A., Batra, P., Schickedanz, A., Chung, P. J., & Raub, A. (2017). Paid parental leave and family wellbeing in the sustainable development era. Public health reviews, 38, 21-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-017-0067-2 Lacharité, C. (2014). Transforming a Wild World: Helping Children and Families to Address Neglect in the Province of Quebec, Canada. Child Abuse Review, 23(4), 286-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2347 Li, K., Pan, Y., Hu, B., Burchinal, M., De Marco, A., Fan, X., & Qin, J. (2016, 2016/07/01/). Early childhood education quality and child outcomes in China: Evidence from Zhejiang Province. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 427-438. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.009 Miconi, D., Beeman, I., Robert, E., Beatson, J., & Ruiz-Casares, M. (2018, 04/01). Child supervision in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review, 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.040 Morantz, G., Rousseau, C., Banerji, A., Martin, C., & Heymann, J. (2013). Resettlement challenges faced by refugee claimant families in Montreal: lack of access to child care. Child & Family Social Work, 18(3), 318-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00848.x Morrongiello, B. A., Zdzieborski, D., & Stewart, J. (2012, 2012/04/01). Supervision of Children in Agricultural Settings: Implications for Injury Risk and Prevention. Journal of Agromedicine, 17(2), 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924x.2012.655127 Nandi, A., Hajizadeh, M., Harper, S., Koski, A., Strumpf, E. C., & Heymann, J. (2016). Increased Duration of Paid Maternity Leave Lowers Infant Mortality in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Quasi-Experimental Study. PLOS Medicine, 13(3), e1001985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001985 Nandi, A., Jahagirdar, D., Dimitris, M. C., Labrecque, J. A., Strumpf, E. C., Kaufman, J. S., Vincent, I., Atabay, E., Harper, S., Earle, A., & Heymann, S. J. (2018). The Impact of Parental and Medical Leave Policies on Socioeconomic and Health Outcomes in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature. The Milbank quarterly, 96(3), 434-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12340 Norman, R. E., Byambaa, M., De, R., Butchart, A., Scott, J., & Vos, T. (2012). The Long-Term Health Consequences of Child Physical Abuse, Emotional Abuse, and Neglect: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLOS Medicine, 9(11), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001349 Rouse, J. B., & Schwebel, D. C. (2019, 2019/09/01/). Supervision of young children in parking lots: Impact on child pedestrian safety. Journal of Safety Research, 70, 201-206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.07.006 Ruiz-Casares, M., & Heymann, J. (2009). Children home alone unsupervised: Modeling parental decisions and associated factors in Botswana, Mexico, and Vietnam. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(5), 312-323. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.09.010 Ruiz-Casares, M., Nazif-Muñoz, I. J., Iwo, R., & Oulhote, Y. (2018). Nonadult Supervision of Children in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Results from 61 National Population-Based Surveys. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081564 Ruiz-Casares, M., Trocmé, N., & Fallon, B. (2012). Supervisory neglect and risk of harm. Evidence from the Canadian Child Welfare System. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(6), 471-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.03.005 Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., I., P., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf UNESCO. (2006). Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007: Strong Foundations: Early Childhood Care and Education. http://www.unesco.org/education/GMR/2007/Full_report.pdf Vilar-Compte, M., Teruel, G., Flores, D., Carroll, G. J., Buccini, G. S., & Pérez-Escamilla, R. (2019, 2019/06/01). Costing a Maternity Leave Cash Transfer to Support Breastfeeding Among Informally Employed Mexican Women. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 40(2), 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572119836582

Hello, this is our panel test, do not submit papers

It was March 2020 when COVID struck us. It came as a rude shock. The world had not heard of a pandemic of this nature and magnitude. Even the most developed countries with huge health and medical infrastructure were thoroughly confused to tackle this pandemic. There seemed to have a policy crisis in almost all the countries of the world and Policy-wise, all kinds of Laws were applied as there was no time to enact new laws. Even in India, THE EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, of 1897 was enforced which initially dealt with the outbreak of Cholera in some parts of India. This two-page Act provided all powers to Government to deal with the disease. Likewise, in most Asian countries, there were not enough laws and policies to deal with the situation; let alone the necessary infrastructure and medicines. This panel aims to discuss how different countries managed this crisis through their existing administrative-legal mechanism that came into force for a situation like this. What lessons has the world learnt regarding policies, programmes and projects? Crisis and its management are not now to the world. Every crisis brings with it opportunities for improvement. Hurricane Katrina in the USA in 2005 raised several questions about governance including apartheid. It changed the American thought process. Similarly, SARS, Bird Flu and all such incidences make Public Administration understand its inherent and systemic weaknesses; and give the opportunity to make necessary course corrections. Understating the policy perspective; creating a new policy formulation and implementation model and making the world more secure and safe is the ultimate responsibility of public administration. Several related questions of leadership, motivation and decision-making will also be understood leading to a new understanding of the phenomena. The focus of this panel would be on Asia as the outbreak started here and it is the most populated area of the world where resides two-thirds of humanity. It is not difficult to learn that the world has always been Euro-Centric since the Industrial revolution when the solution to every Asian governance problem was searched through European lenses. Even at the time of the COVID crisis, it seemed that the Asian countries were looking towards Europe seeking policy solutions and a course of action. This should be seen as a new form of crisis, as the capabilities of the governments were under question when it came to managing this crisis. The agility of the governments of Asian Counties should be improved with time. The panel aims to find out the answers to the following research questions: 1. What was the administrative and legal background of the different Asian Countries while dealing with this situation of crisis? 2. What Acts, Policies, Programmes and Projects were formulated for dealing with this crisis situation? 3. What were the experiences of different parts of the world? 4. Was the line of treatment right, if not, what are the alternatives? 5. What lessons did we learn for future policies and legal frameworks? 6. Centralization or decentralization is the key? 7. Why were the most developed countries most affected? The panel on Governing Crisis (T20) will be discussing, but not limited to, the following themes 1. Legal background in crisis management. 2. Handling the pandemic with existing laws. 3. Act, policies, programmes and projects for pandemic management. 4. Experiences of pandemic management in different parts of the world. 5. Alternatives to existing policies. 6. Lessons learnt for future policies and legal framework. 7. Centralization or decentralization is the key. 8. Why were the most developed countries most affected. 9. Good Governance and pandemic handling 10. SDGs and pandemic management policies.

This in-person panel is interested in the study of bad policy. Public policy scholars have long been interested in the study of policy successes and failures, as well as government mistakes, yet they have been reluctant to label policy as either good or bad. References to bad policy, however, abound in everyday parlance, in the popular press and even in other academic disciplines. Policy scholars are called upon at times to pass judgment on policy. There is limited guidance, however, within the discipline on how to do so. What is bad policy? Why should we study it? What theoretical and methodological approaches are best suited to provide a greater understanding of bad policy? What can scholars learn from studying examples of bad policy? As a starting point for the discussion, we define bad policy as a policy that is consciously developed, adopted and/or sustained even though it can be shown to cause harm, is ineffective, or generates serious unwanted or undesirable negative outcomes, as evidenced by extensive research which is available to the policy maker. The objective of this panel is to develop a full-fledged research program of comparative study into bad policy. The panel will flesh out theoretical and methodological approaches as well as opportunities and challenges to address the central normative considerations to studying and acting on bad policy. Papers will conceptualize and operationalize the concept of bad policy; consider how best to study it while recognizing the normative constraints attached to the concept; and develop bad policy case studies. The panel presupposes that bad policy is a scientifically worthwhile topic on which to conduct socially relevant research. Bad policy warrants separate attention distinct from related existing concepts in the field such as failed policy. After all, it is possible for a policy to be successful and meet its objectives, yet still, be undesirable. In an era of declining trust in institutions, including governments, the prominence of bad policy further undermines the state. As such, the study of bad policy is also a requisite for a greater understanding of what constitutes good and desirable policy and better governance.

“Where have all the reviewers gone? Is the peer review concept in crisis?” These questions, here asked by Lynn E. DeLisi (2022) in Psychiatry Research, is pressing also for journals which publish work in our field of policy studies. The system of voluntary and unpaid peer review has been the cornerstone for quality assurance in scholarly knowledge dissemination and, as De Lisi describes from her 50 years of experience in journal editing, has formerly been considered a privileged obligation for anyone aiming to belong to the scholarly community. Despite criticism for being slow, hampering innovation, not avoiding editorial and reviewer biases, not always preventing low quality publications, and one-sidedly benefitting the business models of large publishers, most scholars would agree that peer review continues to perform a crucial function for creating trust in scientific communication (Kelly et al. 2014). However, editors from journals in our field, as in other disciplines, find it increasingly difficult to recruit suitable reviewers for submitted manuscripts – to an extent where colleagues already diagnose a veritable “reviewer fatigue” in political science (Breuning et al. 2015). This crisis has intensified with the arrival of more and more journals, increasing publication pressure on younger scholars for tenure positions, growing workload for faculty and, more lately, the pandemic. Attracting available reviewers, in specific sub-areas, themes or subjects, and keeping to deadlines and qucik turn-around of feedback to authors are increasing challenges. If we add factors such as high quality and depth of reviews, as well as the relevance of feedback, and adherence to the purposes and culture of the respective journal, challenges become even greater. If editors in our field continue to struggle finding suitable reviewers and/or to provide timely feedback to authors, our publication model as a whole is at stake. This debate is open and far from having reached any consensus. Debated solutions include payments for reviewers, non-monetary rewards such as free access to a journal or public recognition models, editorial collectives, the integration of review duties into tenured positions, but also the abolition of “revise and resubmit” decisions (Flaherty 2022). But to what extent do these solutions solve the problem, or not, or potentially create new ones? For example, most proposals barely touch the individualistic dimension of this (collective academic) task, the different dimensions that require engagement (beyond "just" submitting a review), the problem of the quality of the “product”, the training of academics to become good reviewers, or most scholars' lack of time engaging in this demanding process. This roundtable seeks to take stock of the challenges different journal editors and board members in our field experience, the solutions they discuss. We believe that - though competition on the journal publishing market is fierce - it is time for a collective discussion of how to create a sustainable future for high quality peer review in our field. (see specific questions for the panel/roundtable in the call for papers/participation)

The United Nations Secretary General (Antonio Guterres) has recently defined corruption as “criminal, immoral and a betrayal of public trust. Even more damaging in time of crisis”. Countries across the world have been recently experiencing different types of crises and related emergencies. From natural disasters due to climate change to the Covid-19 pandemic, geo-political conflicts, and economic crises. Emergencies create new “opportunities for corruption to thrive and grow as actions taken to quickly address the needs presented by the crisis may lead to sacrifices in transparency and accountability” (UNODC 2020). The acceleration of decision-making and the heightened uncertainty linked to the emergency lead many public and private institutions to forego the usual precautions and procedures. In addition, the large number of recovery efforts and economic aids injected into these contexts foster additional corruption opportunities. Systemic shocks can also exacerbate preexisting integrity challenges, affect effective governance, and trust in government institutions (OECD, 2021). In these contexts, it is often problematic to develop public measures against corruption that can keep pace with corruption opportunities in times of crisis. Two main mechanisms affect public sector corruption risks during emergencies: 1. An increase in opportunities for extracting rents (e.g., recovery funds, economic aids, etc.) 2. A decrease in control mechanisms (e.g., transparency and accountability systems). Effective anti-corruption efforts during emergencies need to address these two specific mechanisms. They must go “hand-in-hand with economic response and recovery efforts to ensure the appropriate allocation and distribution of funds.” (UNODC, 2020). The anti-corruption academic community, as well as international organizations, have been actively considering the consequence of natural disasters, the Covid-19 pandemic, conflict situations, and economic crises in terms of corruption risks (Divjak 2015; Estrada 2020; Gallego et al 2020; OECD 2021; Terziev et al. 2020; United Nations 2021; UNODC 2020; Wernick 2020). However, most of these evaluations are based on past experiences (e.g., management of corruption during Ebola), simulation analyses or qualitative studies, or borrow practical solutions from the management of other problems (e.g., frauds). Practical comparative evaluations of corruption risks based on the most recent emergencies is still underdeveloped. This panel aims to address this research problem and study public sector corruption risk during emergencies (e.g., pandemics, natural disasters, geo-political conflicts, economic crises). In particular, it aims to answer the following research questions: - What are the main types of public sector corruption arising during emergencies? - What sectors (e.g., public procurement, public service delivery) are more at risk of corruption during emergencies? - What are the determinants/risk factors of public sector corruption during emergencies (e.g., specific institutional or management practices)? - What are the most effective anti-corruption policies to counter public sector corruption during emergencies? In terms of scientific relevance, this panel will contribute to enrich research on three main issues in the field of corruption and anti-corruption studies: 1. The conceptualization of corruption types with a focus on misbehaviors emerging during crises. 2. The understanding of the theoretical background for explaining corrupt behaviors during emergencies (e.g., economic vs neo-institutional approaches). 3. The methods used to measure corruption and assess anti-corruption policies.

In contemporary time Food Safety has become an issue of enormous public concern throughout the world. As the global food safety continues to integrate and develop, there is a great need to understand the food safety standards and role of food safety governance systems in global food system development. Food safety and its governance is major problem in throughout the world. Poor governance of Food safety policies and faulty structure of the food sector in developed and developing countries compounds the problem. Food safty systems are heterogeneous and fragmented with large numbers of actors, many of them small-scale and most of them operating in the informal sector. Food softy system facing governance challenges for food safety regulation, inadequate policy and legislation, multiple organizations with overlapping mandates, out-dated, fragmented or missing, legislation, inappropriate standards, lack of harmonization and alignment of standards, failure to cover the informal sector, limited civil society involvement and, limited enforcement. The aim of this panel is to discuss about the food safety standards and its governance mechanism of food safety policies and identify the problems in food safety governance and explore the possible solutions to the challenges faced by the different countries Objectives of the Panel: 1.Examine the standards of food safety adopted by different countries. 2. Understand the policies and structural arrangement of food safety governance in countries. 3. Discuss the intervention of state and international agencies through policies and regulations to ensure food safety. 4. Examine the commitment and strategies of different countries for food safety. 5. Analyze the impact of the poor governance of food safety. 6. Examine the impact of international food safety standards set for trade purposes on food safety policies in developing countries. 7. Suggest measures to improve food safety governance mechanism. Scientific Relevancy: All nations facing problem of food safety, food security and nutrition. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have concern for food security, nutrition and health. In light of these goals food safety and its governance is very pertinent issue. Most of thecountries unable to achieve parameters of Human Development Index. Safe food is right of every individual. To ensure human dignity food safety is most essential.

In what has been termed as the ‘behavioural turn’ in the policy sciences (Leong & Howlett, 2020), policy research has shifted from the traditional emphasis on models of hedonic compliance-deterrence, to a behaviour-driven approach that foregoes the assumption that all behaviour is rational and utilitarian. The question is: What is being done by whom to facilitate this transition and push the behavioural turn forward? This proposed panel aims to address this question by examining fundamental questions about what constitutes “policy behaviour”, who is examining it, the extenuating factors that should be examined around issues such as compliance, what innovations in methodology have developed (such as behavioural policy experiments), and on what subject are more behavioural policy studies are needed in this area. This panel seeks papers which will contribute to empirical base and the improved theorizing of the implications of the behavioural turn for policy-making and the nature of the behavioural state. Rationale: In what has been termed as the ‘behavioural turn’ in the policy sciences (Leong & Howlett, 2020; Howlett & Leong, 2022), policy research has shifted from the traditional emphasis on models of hedonic compliance-deterrence, to a behaviour-driven approach that foregoes the assumption that all behaviour is rational and utilitarian. This new approach emphasizes the understanding of the policy relevant behaviour actually evidenced by the targets of policy activity, and by policy-makers rather than assuming them ex ante. More importantly, this movement helps to resolve the paradox formerly characteristic of the field and strikes a new path towards behaviourally-inspired policy design and the development of what might be termed the ‘behavioural state,’ that is, one in which securing compliance from the target policy population is informed by careful empirical research into the actual motivations of policy targets, rather than a priori assumptions of ‘rationality’ and utilitarian calculus (Leong & Howlett, 2020). A behavioural approach has important implications for policy design and practice. For example, it necessitates the acceptance of a greater level of uncertainty about the likelihood of success of policy design at the same time that it broadens the understanding of compliance, for example, from a purely utilitarian model to allow for the influence of informal institutions such as social norms, irrationalities, and the use of new tools such as nudges (Oliver 2017). The use of policy pilots and experiments, for example, emerge as key techniques for policy formulation in this approach. With the rise of technological abilities, the question of whether governments ought to undertake certain interventions have also given rise to issues of morality of public actions. At the same time, although not situated squarely within this field of behavioural studies, there has been an emerging thread of research on the agnotology of policy studies – ie what policy makers and policy targets do not know – either through wilful ignorance or the active malice of key actors and the behavioural aspects of this issue have only just begun to be examined (Hannah et al, 2022). These implications of the behavioural turn in the policy sciences remains to be systematically studied further and crystallized. The question is: What is being done, by who, to facilitate this transition and push the behavioural turn forward? A more unified approach to the study of behaviour in the policy field will aid the increasing numbers in the policy sciences who are starting to embrace behavioural research in planning and designing their policy research. The ultimate objective is to develop policy strategies that are sound in theory and robust in practice (Ewert and Loer 2021). Panel will deal with all these questions, and papers on these topics are encouraged including: • Charting the development of the field and theories about behavioural public policy (Oliver 2017; Leong and Howlett 2020); •Those related to the development and spread of behavioural insight labs (Muhkerjee and Giest 2020; Straßheim 2021); • Empirical experiments and implications for practice (Mosely and Thomann 2020) • Country cases (Ball 2022; Lourenco et al 2016); • Ethical issues and implications of public philosophy (Sunstein, 2016; Sugden, 2018; Rizzo & Whitman, 2020; von Mises 1927/2005). This panel will address these questions by collating ideas and promoting discussions on this issue. From the extenuating factors that should be examined, to the ways in which more behavioural policy studies can be encouraged, the panel will contribute to the improved theorizing of the implications of this behavioural turn for the policy-making nature of the state, as well as its extent and nature (Olejniczak et al 2019). References: Ball, Sarah. Behavioural Public Policy in Australia: How an Idea Became Practice. Taylor & Francis, 2022. Ewert, Benjamin, and Kathrin Loer. “Advancing Behavioural Public Policies: In Pursuit of a More Comprehensive Concept.” Policy & Politics 49, no. 1 (January 1, 2021): 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15907721287475. Hannah, Adam, Jordan Tchilingirian, Linda Botterill, and Katie Attwell “The role of ‘non-knowledge’ in crisis policymaking: a proposal and agenda for future research” Evidence and Policy, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16552882375377 Howlett, Michael, and Ching Leong. “What Is Behavioral in Policy Studies? : How Far Has the Discipline Moved Beyond Traditional Utilitarianism?” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 5, no. 1 (April 14, 2022). https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.51.292. Leong, Ching, and Michael Howlett. “Theorizing the behavioral state: Resolving the theory-practice paradox of policy sciences” Public Policy and Administration, 37, no. 2: 203-225, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720977588. Lourenço, Joana Sousa, Emanuele Ciriolo, Sara Rafael Almeida, and Xavier Troussard. “Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy: European Report 2016.” Brussels: European Commission, 2016. Moseley, Alice, and Eva Thomann. “A Behavioural Model of Heuristics and Biases in Frontline Policy Implementation.” Text. Policy Press, October 2020. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15967973532891. Mukherjee, Ishani, and Sarah Giest. “Behavioural Insights Teams (BITs) and Policy Change: An Exploration of Impact, Location, and Temporality of Policy Advice.” Administration & Society, May 4, 2020, 0095399720918315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720918315. Olejniczak, Karol, Paweł Śliwowski, and Magdalena Roszczyńska-Kurasińska. “Behaviour Architects: A Framework for Employing Behavioural Insights in Public Policy Practice.” Public Governance / Zarządzanie Publiczne, no. 47(1) (June 27, 2019): 18–32. https://doi.org/10.15678/ZP.2019.47.1.02. Oliver, Adam. “Nudges, Shoves and Budges: Behavioural Economic Policy Frameworks.” The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, May 19, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2419. Oliver, Adam. “The Origins of Behavioural Public Policy.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2017. Rizzo, Mario J. & Glen Whitman. “Escaping Paternalism: Rationality, Behavioural Economics, and Public Policy.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2020. Straßheim, Holger. “Who Are Behavioural Public Policy Experts and How Are They Organised Globally?” Policy & Politics 49, no. 1 (January 1, 2021): 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15956825120821. Sugden, Robert. “The Community of Advantage: A Behavioural Defence of the Liberal Tradition of Economics” Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2018 Sunstein, Cass. “The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science” (Cambridge Studies in Economics, Choice, and Society). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316493021 von Mises, Ludwig. Liberalism. In The Classical Tradition. Indianapolis: The Liberty Fund. 1927/2005.

Across the globe, countries are experiencing a huge demographic shift. The number of adults aged 60 years and older is expected to increase in higher-income countries from 302 million to over 366 million between 2019 and 2030, whereas the number of children aged 14 and younger is expected to decrease from 211 to 202 million.[1] By 2050, a striking 1 in 5 people globally will be aged 60 years and older.[2] Although governments have known for decades of this changing population curve, little has been done to support the growing population of older adults. Many countries continue policies and programs that were developed with a much younger population in mind. It is for the aforementioned reasons that the United Nations (UN) endorsed the action plan titled the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing 2021-2030 (“The Decade”).[3] As the World Health Organization’s Decade of Healthy Ageing Baseline Report states, “the Decade commits WHO and the UN to 10 years of collaboration and action. It brings together governments, civil society, international agencies, professionals, academia, the media and the private sector to collaborate in improving the lives of older people, their families and their communities.”[4] The objective of this panel is to explore how nations can both critically and optimistically think and act to help make each country a better place to grow up and grow old. The associated research question is “In what way(s) can countries restructure policies to address challenges and increase opportunities associated with an ageing population over the next 10 years?” Topics the panel can explore include (but are not limited to): 1. Alignment of health systems to meet the needs of an ageing population, including but not limited to providing access to appropriate, high-quality long-term care, palliative and end-of-life services, and access to appropriate care providers 2. Ageism, elder abuse, and social isolation 3. Creation of age-friendly communities, physical environments and spaces to meet the needs of an ageing population 4. Supporting older adults to engage in wellness and prevention activities that enable healthy ageing 5. Ensuring older people and their caregivers are enabled to participate in informed health decision-making and advance care planning 6. Challenges facing unpaid caregivers of older adults and how best to support them7. Supporting older adults to remain independent and engaged citizens through a concerted effort to strengthen existing and future savings opportunities [1] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2022). World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. UN DESA/POP/2022/TR/NO. 3[2] World Health Organization. (2020). Decade of healthy ageing: baseline report.[3] ibid[4] ibid

This roundtable discusses the development and future of policy sciences. How has the field come of age, what are key current transformations in the future, what will be the future of the field? The roundtable features 2 parts. First, three core pieces of work are presented that reflect on the development of the policy sciences. This includes a systematic mapping of the development of the field, a study on cultural bias and policy analysis, and an analysis of public policy in Latin America. Secondly, a roundtable discussion is held between participants and invited experts, including: Prof.dr. Iris Geva-May Prof.dr. Christopher Weible Prof.dr. Claire Dunlop Core questions discussed in the roundtable include: - How do participants assess the current state of the field of policy sciences, and what future directions do they foresee/wish for the field? - To extent has the policy science tradition globalised beyond its North American orientation in recent decades? - What have been the key turning points & paradigm shifts in the history of the field? - To what extent can (and ought) we consider policy sciences is a discrete, institutionalised research field? Or has it become fragmented? - What of the future agenda of policy sciences in relation to the above questions?

This panel is organized by the OAS School of Governance and addresses how COVID 19 forcibly placed us in a huge global proof of concept. Due to the pressure from external imposition, the digital transformation became condition of existence of a new reality. The use of video conferencing by public administrators, for example, showed that change was possible and that nothing more than a push was needed. Citizens and companies were ready for all interactions to be digital. This proves that crises are the best time to push us to make hard decisions and think about the future: the opportunity to radically transform the state, to reinvent it, to refound it. We need to meet the demands of the citizen of the SXXI, among which are the demands of another type of democracy. Mobilizations of discontent are dragging around the world from the Arab Spring, to the 15th M de Madrid, Occupy Wall Street. Citizens who do not feel represented by the State were already occupying the streets and staging waves of collective indignation. The murder of George Floyd sparked a new wave of outrage in 2020. Only After the population expressed itself emphatically, the government took disruptive actions: disassociating all members of the police force and starting from scratch. Why not to lead the transformation of the State in a disruptive way and think urgently about how to expand citizen participation in decision-making, construction, monitoring and supervision of the State? We don’t need to continue to bear the brutal costs of inertial rigid structures, by whim or for corporate protection of positions and salaries. The crisis of the State is not the effect of a conjuncture, but of a historical accumulation of wrong decisions made along the decades. In the last 8 years, public spending increased three times more than the population growth and much more than GDP increase. In the private sector, the price of goods and services falls while quality improves, driven by the market's own competitiveness. In the public sector, there is an absolute and relative increase in the prices of services, which makes the equation untenable. If the state is committed to maintaining the past, how does it think and execute innovative public policies? In general, it does not. To grow, companies need to reinvent themselves every day. Even elderly people had to learn how to use Zoom in order to participate in birthday celebrations during pandemic. To serve the citizens, the State must do the same. The digital transformation of the State is an issue of the highest political priority. It's not a technology issue. The institutional reinvention of the state may be difficult, but what is the alternative? To continue to suffer from an inefficient, costly and ineffective State? This paper aims to expose the advances that took place in the years of the pandemic in solutions for citizen participation, social control, service delivery and increase of democratic capillarity, which shows that it is possible to react to the crisis of the contemporary democracies.

Unlike dominant policy approaches that are rooted in western neo-colonial and neo-liberal ideals, the transformative paradigm is principled on social justice and aims to create systemic and structural changes against oppressive systems and power structures in society. Transformative policy research, policy-making and policy evaluation seek to advance epistemic and policy justice through reflexive praxis, the centering of the living experiences and needs of the target community, and the use of appropriate theories and methodologies. As the world faces greater uncertainties and instability as a result of the global shocks from the COVID-19 pandemic, economic downturn, rising rates of inflation, global climate change, wars and humanitarian crises, a deepening of social polarization, and a rise in populism, the need for transformative policy is greater than ever. This interdisciplinary policy panel focuses on the use of the transformative paradigm to support policy research, policy-making and policy evaluation. The objectives of this panel are: -To showcase diverse examples of transformative policy in research, policy-making, policy analysis, and policy evaluation from across the world;-To create a platform for scholarly researchers, policy practitioners, decision-makers, students and the public to engage in dialogue on transformative policy;-To promote reciprocal knowledge exchange in innovations in transformative policy research, policy-making, policy analysis and policy monitoring and evaluation approaches;-To provide networking opportunities for conference delegates interested in engaging in transformative policy. The first two-hour panel will provide a space for policy scholars, researchers, policy practitioners, decision-makers, students and the public to learn about various theoretical, methodological, or empirical research related to transformative policy topics, as well as the authors behind such work. The second two-hour panel will provide attendees reciprocal learning opportunities to: 1) engage in groups to engage in deeper discussions with presenters (45 minutes) and 2) on topical subjects relevant to transformative policies (45 minutes). Each group discussion will close with a larger report back to promote knowledge exchange amongst participants.

This panel discusses the state of existing and proposed national and regional IPPA networks that aim to promote and advance public policy studies in their respective jurisdictions. Panellists from four continents will discuss their experiences regarding advantages and difficulties of setting up national and/or regional networks/associations. They will focus on how the network operates, its reach, initiatives, past and future activities and effect, as well as the needs for and types of IPPA support. They will also explore venues facilitating cross-national network communication, cooperation, coordination, collaboration under the auspices of IPPA, and support needed at IPPA level.

This roundtable is organized by the Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP). The policy dismantling process has been verified in several democracies around the world, especially in those with authoritarian governments, becoming part of the democratic institutions' degradation process that characterizes such governments. The Bolsonaro presidency was not an exception to this trend, being an administration characterized by the destruction of several public policies, as demonstrated by different studies in Brazil. Now that Bolsonaro's government has ended and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has ascended, the main challenge of the new government is to rebuild public policies that have been dismantled or sidelined and to reformulate the state institutions needed for the reconstruction process. In this context, this panel aims to discuss the theoretical and empirical challenges to the study of processes of public policy reconstruction, such as the one underway in Brazil. This discussion aims to understand not only the Brazilian situation but also other national contexts, which are or will be facing political changes and the reconstruction of policy capacities oriented to public policy formulation and implementation.

Meet the Women in Public Policy International Network Our mission is to advance women's scholarly contribution to the field of public policy. We aim to mentor the next generation of female policy scholars, foster collaboration between female academics in the North and South, and promote scholarship on gender issues. Contact us: Email: wipp.network@gmail.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/network_wipp?lang=en

This course intends to cover the theoretical, conceptual, research and practical aspects of wicked problems; how researchers can embrace and incorporate complexity and uncertainty into their research designs; how they can center applied policy research, partnerships and methods; and how using this approach to public policy research across a range of policy areas/examples can develop new insights and strategies for tackling wicked public policy problems. (FULL DAY COURSE)

Critical Race Theory is a way to understand how racism has shaped public policy and to uncover histories of discrimination in education, health care, and the media, to name a few institutions. This course will present the fundamental tenets of critical race theory and how they inform policy analyses and policy change drawing on the work of seminal essential race theorists such as Kimberely Crenshaw, Ibram X, Kendi, and Robin D’Angelo. The course will engage with the merits of some emerging international debates relating to the efficacy of critical race theory from a policy perspective, including debates about the role of government in bringing about equity and critical race theory’s focus on racial outcomes rather than intentionality and equal opportunity. Examples of critical race theory policy initiatives will be integrated into the workshop. (MORNING COURSE)

This workshop invites students and early career scholars to a dialogue considering how the decolonial turn in the Social Sciences impacts Policy Studies, if at all. The workshop will begin with an outline Indigenous perspectives on policy research, conceptualization, analysis and advocacy, with the Yellowhead Institute as a case study, followed by brief presentations on similar examples from workshop participants. Following presentations, there will be a facilitated dialogue with three broad goals: 1) to assess the degree to which those working in the discipline(s) of Policy Studies are engaging with "decolonization", 2) to draw out principles of a general approach and/or method to decolonial Policy Studies, and, 3) to reflect on the opportunities and challenges for solidarity between non-Indigenous Policy Studies scholars and Indigenous communities. The workshop invites short presentation proposals from conference attendees, especially Indigenous students and early career scholars. (MORNING COURSE)

This full-day workshop is designed to develop skills that faculty can use to develop interactive and participant-centered teaching styles and to help faculty develop a case library that they can use in their teaching programs. It combines asynchronous presentations that participants view in advance and with “hands-on” activities in case teaching. The in-person sessions involve "how to" lessons on case teaching and activities where the participants work in teams to do things like prepare case teaching plans and class openings that they present to all of the participants. These will be combined with discussions of several existing cases drawn from multiple countries, combined with a “post-mortem” of what worked and what did not in both the written case and the case discussion. We will discuss core teaching strategies including development of time management plans, whiteboard management plans, how to pose opening questions, “cold-calling” versus “warm calling,” use of brief role plays and extended simulations, and how to close a case-discussion class with “Take-Aways.” Participants will be expected to view several video presentations and read several cases before the workshop. (FULL DAY COURSE)

This workshop proposes to discuss and train participants in the art and craft of qualitative interviews of Policymakers. After discussing the qualitative interview's epistemological and methodological biases, the workshop proposes different practical exercises for participants to learn how to proceed. (MORNING COURSE)

We live in turbulent times, in which policy dynamics are characterized to be as highly variable, inconsistent, unexpected, and/or unpredictable. Thus policy-makers have to design policies under pressure, and often under the veil of ignorance (in terms of cause-effect relationship. How can they design robust policies under these persisting critical conditions? This workshop will focus on this general theme by collectively discussing the following issues and key concepts: Ambiguity and uncertainty: their impact on policy design The various dimensions of crises and their impact on policy design Organizational and institutional solutions for guaranteeing policy robustness in turbulent times. (MORNING COURSE)

This course examines the challenges posed by the governing of ecological transition processes for public policy research. The multi-actors/cross-sectoral nature of these dynamics has led to diverse heuristics that analyze the multiple interactions and the way these processes are governed, each one with different assumptions on their influencing factors. In keeping with the multidisciplinary nature of ecological transitions and how they are addressed in comparative policy research, this course will aim at: conceptualizing the role of public policies in transition processes; including this perspective into research designs and applied research; Examining what resources and capacities are drawn upon in order to monitor and administer processes of change; incorporating conflicts, resistances, and mobilizations; applying these concepts and tools across a range of policy areas/political contexts in order to generate new assumptions and research agendas for studying the governing of ecological transition processes. (MORNING COURSE)

The course proposes to examine the main research question, concepts, and theory elements of a constructivist and pragmatist approach to study the Policy Process empirically. Inspired by Pragmatist Philosophy (Dewey, James), Pragmatist Sociology (Boltanski, Latour), and by the linguistic Turn in Social Sciences, this approach proposes to observe the policymakers "in action" involved in the policy process to impose a policy solution in the policy process and to understand it as a political activity. This approach proposes to take into account the cognitive skill and the discursive capacity of the stakeholders and the policymakers not only to define a wicked problem but also to transform it as a treatable problem that can be solved and to match it to a policy solution. (AFTERNOON COURSE)

This session will give insights into the manifold ways in public policy to approach emotions while focusing in the second part of the course on the interpretive analysis of emotions as a tool to understand policy processes. The course will outline the theoretical framework that enables such analysis and give an overview of its analytical techniques. The theoretical framework shows that, in public policy scholarship, addressing emotions has been linked to the analysis of knowledge. While interpretive approaches to policy studies have been prominently placed within such analysis of knowledge through language - including its various uses and the structural and power biases that such use implies - they have omitted the role of emotions. Through various examples, the course will show how emotions can, and should, be included in the analysis of knowledge in public policy because they inform and structure policies through meanings actors accord them by expressing, e.g., fear, joy, anger, pride, shame, disgust, or rage. Through these meanings, emotions are categorized in ‘acceptable/legitimate’ or ‘unacceptable/illegitimate’ elements of concrete standpoints and actions and, thus, affect who has a voice and how that voice impacts particular policy debates/policy conflicts. This means interpreting (1) when ‘emotions’ are mentioned, (2) who mentioned them, and (3) what specific rhetorical devices are used to describe them. I will conclude by providing further illustrative examples of how such analysis of emotions can be designed and conducted as a part of research projects. (AFTERNOON COURSE)

As policies travel beyond national borders, the public policy literature has sought to better understand the processes, motivations, obstacles, agents, and arenas involved in policy transfer. In Global South countries, policy transfer has been often intertwined with projects of international development cooperation, be it at the bilateral, multilateral, or civil society levels. Dynamics of solidarity and conditionality arouse, promoting policy circulation in different ways. Resistance to the adoption of imposed models was often used as a strategy by social movements. Often policies are labelled as ‘best practices’ and globalized as if one size fits all. Drawing on different cases of policies circulating from/to the Global South and a new generation of policy transfer studies, this course will engage participants with the growing debates over policy dynamics that constitute what the instructors have termed the “transnational policy process”. (AFTERNOON COURSE)

The fact that populist parties and leaders came into power both at the national and subnational levels even in established democracies offers a novel opportunity to study the practice of their governance and policy making in comparison to the business-as-usual of liberal democracies. Although populism scholars claim that there is no such thing as populist policy, given the malleable and ideologically multifaceted character of populism, it might be possible the reconstruct the ideal type of populist policy making even in terms of its substantive (content-related) components. Indeed, prioritizing some policy fields over others is not necessarily a characteristic feature of populist governance, but frequent policy innovations as well as large policy changes may be. Populism manifests itself even more clearly in terms of the procedures and the discourses of policy making. The course aims at exploring the main patterns of populist policy making along the dimensions of policy content, policy procedures and policy discourses. This exercise helps also to reflect upon the sometime hidden assumptions concerning the mainstream models of policy making and their limitations explaining governance styles which differ from the policy making of liberal democracies. The course will adopt an ideal-typical approach, but will rely on empirical evidences concerning the governance of populist governments. Participants are welcome to bring in their own work as it bears on any of these themes. (AFTERNOON COURSE)

Globalization is one of the defining features of the contemporary world, but there is considerable controversy regarding its nature, impact, and future trends. This workshop will seek to integrate debates about globalization and development at the onset of the 21st century. The course will be weaving in the sustainable development goals to contextualize and frame policy debate. Our analytical approach will be to study globalization through the lens of diverse global regions and will explore models and cases of economic growth and development, North-South trade, economic stabilization, and development finance. In addition, we overview emerging issues reshaping development on a global level and the changing patterns of global migration of labor and capital, trade flows, the influence of technology, the role of conflict in development, and global phenomena such as global warming. There will be a particular reference to problems of debt and financial crisis, income inequality, peace economics, and the effects of globalization on prospects for stable development. (AFTERNOON COURSE)

Decision-making relies on multiple sources of information and opinions that emanate both from public organizations at different levels of power and from civil society. This set of policy advice providers constitutes the policy advisory system (Halligan, 1995). Policy advice provides the merits of policy options and their potential to deliver the desired outcomes. The lecture will present and establish a dialogue between four streams of literature which study of the relationships between advice-givers and the decision-makers in the policy process: Policy advisory systems (Craft and Wilder, 2017), knowledge utilization (Boswell, 2008), policy work (Colebatch and Hoppe, 2018) and ministerial advisors within the executive triangle (Shaw et Eichbaum, 2018). It will invite students to reflect on further theorization in this specific field of policy analysis. (AFTERNOON COURSE)

Policy scholars are increasingly encouraged to approach and design their research with relevance and knowledge mobilization in mind. The focus on evidence-based, robust research applied to ‘real-world’ public policy issues has grown in the past two decades. Scholars are asked to reflect on policy research for what purposes, encouraged to communicate their research findings to public and policy audiences beyond the academic community, and provided with multiple channels to do so. Using relevant literatures from public policy, public administration, knowledge mobilization/utilization, and some illustrative examples, this workshop focuses on helping doctoral students and junior scholars think about relevance and knowledge mobilization related to their research including their theoretical foundations, research design, methodological choices as well as their publication and dissemination strategies. This interactive workshop will include small group research exchanges and discussions of opportunities and challenges related to centering relevance and knowledge mobilization in public policy research. (AFTERNOON COURSE)