LIST OF PANELS

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:

1. Discourse and framing of policy problems at the national level are heavily influenced by extra-national framings, often originating in international organizations.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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. 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.

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 invites papers that extend our understanding of multi-scalar and nested policy processes, bringing together global, national, and local levels. Our focus is on the policy process dynamics of these multi-scalar policy fields. Examples could include: SDGs, public health, climate change, migration, financial regulation. The policy field is less important than the dynamics. We are particularly interested in papers that explore:

1.     The role of global policy framing of national policy discourses, through policy research and/or advocacy.

2.     Ways in which policy actors at all levels interconnect and operate in a “field” of networked activities and thereby create “spaces” which are neither global nor national, but both.

3.     The process of implementation (localization, translation) of global policy frameworks either through tailored regulatory regimes or locally adapted public services.