LIST OF PANELS

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.

This panel invites critical policy scholars, academics, researchers, practitioners, and students whose work centers mainly on the “Critical Policy Studies in the Asian Context.” This panel welcomes a wide range of critical policy lessons, lenses, and perspectives in Asia, including, but not limited to:

    the criticism of the technical orientation of policy analysis

    the practice of bottom-up policy making

    participatory-oriented innovations and social enterprises

    the focus on governance and networks in public policy

    the role of culture, local knowledge, social norms, and the context in policy analysis

    the reflection of deliberative participation

    discourse analysis of the particular public policy issue

    narrative policy analysis

    everyday practices of street-level policy analysts

    interaction of structure-agency in policy ecosystem

    the role of emotion in real-world policy analysis

    people-centered policy process

    public policies and the empowerment of marginalized sectors and communities

    inclusive and collaborative decision making

We encourage submissions that embody novel critical perspectives and approaches which potentially contribute to the progressive movement in policy studies. Those papers that delve into case-specific studies and even with a new contribution towards critical methodologies in policy studies are welcome to contribute. The paper should address how the policy lessons, lenses, and perspectives shed light on Asian critical policy realms and what are the challenges of those lessons, lenses, and perspectives.