LIST OF WORKSHOPS

A critical aspect of political life is the inability or unwillingness of individuals and decision-makers to respond proportionally to new information. A manifestation of this phenomenon is policy overreaction, defined as a policy that “impose[s] objective and/or perceived social costs without producing offsetting objective and/or perceived benefits” (Maor, 2012, 235), and policy overinvestment, which occurs “when government overinvests in a single policy instrument beyond its instrumental value in achieving a policy goal” (Jones et al., 2014, 149). The study of overreaction in politics and policy offers a unique insight into modern political reality. Global and domestic threats coupled with publics that are relatively skeptical about politicians and political institutions and rising negativity and populism in democratic politics imply that policy overshooting is increasingly required for the public to perceive policy action as sufficient and politicians as competent, at least in the short term. Not only has overreaction been a focal point for political actors seeking decisive and swift policy change in times of real or manufactured crisis, but such action has time and time again also made a dramatic impact on the direction and the character of policy and politics. A classic example is the U.S. response to 9/11. It is, therefore, an exciting time for research on overreaction in politics and policy. The study of overreaction is theoretically meaningful because it contributes to our basic understanding of fundamental processes. The insight of the punctuated equilibrium theory—that policy responses oscillate between periods of underreaction to the flow of information coming from the environment into the system and overreaction due to disproportionate information processing (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993)—implies that policy overreaction is the norm rather than the rarity. The study of overreaction in politics and policy is also practically important because, under certain conditions, such a response creates substantial value for policymakers. Indeed, there has recently been a conceptual turn whereby overreaction has been re-entering the political and policy lexicons as a type of intentional choice, as part of the newly-emerging disproportionate policy perspective (Maor, 2017a). This perspective comprises strategic explanations which revolve around the idea that at times overreactions in politics and policy reflect intentional choices which may be carefully developed, meticulously debated, executed as planned, and successful in achieving the intended goals, especially during crises involving panic and public fears. It challenges psychological explanations that put all overreactions down to errors, derived from overconfidence and other misconceptions of risks (Janis, 1989; Jervis, 1976; Walker & Malici, 2011; Maor, 2012), human cognitive and emotional architectures which are the underpinnings of disproportionate information processing (Jones & Baumgartner, 2005), and socio-psychological dynamics in small decision-making groups (Janis, 1982; Mintz & Wayne, 2016; ‛t Hart et al., 1997). It also challenges institutional explanations which put all overreaction down to errors derived from institutional values, procedures, myths, and routines (Peters et al., 2017). This workshop aims to advance the study of overreaction in politics and policy by building on the disproportionate policy perspective; studies of endogenous disjoint change, as well as on advances in the study of framing, emotions, social contagion, policy bubbles, elite decision-making, and new institutionalism. We aim to advance the disciplines of political science and policy sciences by highlighting a conceptual turn whereby the concept of overreaction is re-entering the policy lexicon as a type of intentional policy choice rather than a policy error, as well as by suggesting ways by which strategic and institutional explanations of overreaction can incorporate behavioral findings. We are seeking conceptual, empirical and methodological papers that revolve around the following questions: What are the conceptual foundations, analytical anatomy, and the conceptual reach of these explanations? What models could be developed in order to understand endogenously produced disjointed change in public policy? What are the implications of the disproportionate policy perspective for better understanding intentional overreaction in politics and policy? To what extent can individual cognitive processes help us understand changes at the aggregate level? What is the role of emotions and emotional entrepreneurs in overreaction? How can institutional and strategic explanations of overreaction in politics and policy blend findings from studies of human cognition and decision-making? How do policymakers balance between overreaction rhetoric and doctrine, or between selective and non-selective modes of policy overreaction, and what are the implications of such strategic choices? How are policy issues framed in policy overreaction speeches in order to reach out to the targeted audience? What rewards do politicians and bureaucrats receive from overreaction? How does the concept of policy bubbles enhance our understanding of policymaking? The workshop will bring together participants at different stages of their careers, working in different areas of the political sciences and other disciplines on experimental and non-experimental research. The workshop directors have already approached researchers working in these areas who have indicated their willingness to participate. It is our hope that the workshop will yield an edited volume or a special edition of a journal. References Baumgartner, F. R. (2017). Endogenous disjoint change. Cognitive Systems Research, 44, 69–73. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instabilities in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Janis, I. L. (1982). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascos. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. First published in 1972. Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial decisions. Leadership in policymaking and crisis management. New York: The Free Press. Jervis, R. (1976). Perceptions and misperceptions in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jones, B.D. (2017). Behavioral Rationality as a Foundation for Public Policy Studies. Cognitive Systems Research 43: 63-75. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The Politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jones, B. D., Thomas III, H. F., & Wolfe, M. (2014). Policy bubbles. Policy Studies Journal, 42, 146–171. Maor, M. (2012). Policy overreaction. Journal of Public Policy, 32(3), 231–259. Maor, M. (2014a). Policy bubbles: Policy overreaction and positive feedback. Governance, 27(3), 469–487. Maor, M. (2016). Emotion-driven negative policy bubbles. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 191–210. Maor, M. (2017a). The implications of the emerging disproportionate policy perspective for the new policy design studies. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 383-398. Maor, M. (2017b). Rhetoric and doctrines of policy over- and underreactions in times of crisis. Policy & Politics, doi: 10.1332/030557317X14843233064353. Maor, M. (2017c). Disproportionate policy response. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.168. Maor, M. (2017d). Policy overreaction doctrine: From ideal-type to context-sensitive solution in times of crisis. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (eds.), Handbook of Policy Formulation (pp. 539-553). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Maor, M. (2017e). Policy entrepreneurs in policy valuation processes: The case of the coalition for environmentally responsible economies. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, doi: 10.1177/2399654417700629. Maor, M., Tosun J., & Jordan, A. (2017). Proportionate and disproportionate policy responses to climate change: Core concepts and empirical applications. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2017.1281730. Mintz, A., & Wayne, C. (2016). The polythink syndrome: U.S. foreign policy decisions on 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and ISIS. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Peters, G., Jordan, A., & Tosun, J. (2017). Over-reaction and under-reaction in climate policy: An institutional analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2017.1348225. 'T Hart, P., Stern, E. K., & Sundelius, B. (Eds.) (1997). Beyond groupthink: Political group dynamics and foreign policy-making. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Walker, S. G., & Malici, A. (2011). U.S. presidents and foreign policy mistakes. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

In 1993, David Rochefort and Roger Cobb published a major edited book titled "The politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda." Drawing on the studies undertaken by Cobb and Elder on problem agenda setting and Schattschneider’s studies on Semi-Sovereign people, they focused on the problem definition process. This involved defining the meaning of a social situation, its implication, its urgency, and also who was to blame for the situation. They proposed to study the “problem definition phenomenon from both political and policymaking perspectives, to map out the most frequently employed by problem definers, and to analyze the scenarios by which definitions are build and crumble” (p. 4). In a recent handbook edited by Nikos Zahariadis on public policy agenda setting, Bryan Jones makes reference to the significance of Cobb and Elder’s original work, perceived as the “first systematic scholarly assessment of the pre-decisional component of the policy process” and how it helps us understand the policymaking process beyond the pluralist approach. While the trajectories and the definition of a public problem has received much attention in an attempt to grasp the problem agenda, a different aspect of the policy agenda has received much less attention, i.e., the solution agenda. However, inspired by Cohen, March and Olsen and Kingdon assume that a solution follows an autonomous trajectory from the problem and has its own rules, actors, dynamics and structure. Kingdon underscores numerous differences such as the structuration of the system of actors, a small, closed and interdependent policy community in the solution stream, a larger issue networks in the problem stream, and a dynamic of the stream that is very disruptive and ponctuated when a problem is encountered and very incremental and slow in the case of a solution. Although Nikos Zahariadis proposes to combine both Cobb and Elders’s and Kingdon’s ideas in the introduction of the handbook on policy agenda, he nonetheless focuses on the problem agenda and on how issues manage to attract the attention of government. He underscores how Kingdon’s work helped account for the importance of agency, institutional friction, policy entrepreneurs and time. Paradoxically, however, despite the focus on issues and problems, an enigma persists: how is a solution defined and how does it succeed to attract the government’s attention and its decision to take responsibility for the issue? Under the hypothesis advanced by Kingdon, i.e., that solutions and problems are not interrelated, it seems clear that how a solution is defined and manages to attract government attention continues to be the hidden side of the policymaking process. It is interesting to observe, for instance, that most policy research has taken a constructivist approach to better grasp the “attention” phenomenon. Much of this research considers that a problem does not exist by itself but rather depends on how policymakers define it, support it, propagate it or, on the contrary, suffocate it. Researchers have constantly viewed a solution as simply a “formula” that uses existing instruments without paying any serious attention to its definition, meaning, support or suffocation. The issue of a solution is frequently reduced to an issue about choosing existing instruments and how these can be coupled with a problem. However, for a proposal to be recommended as a “solution”, it must be associated with instruments, formalization procedures, expected consequences, potential beneficiaries, references, values, ideologies, redefined problem to be solved, public policy to be changed, etc. In this workshop, we would like to explore this hidden side of the policy agenda by analyzing the definition and trajectories of a solution in the same manner that the definition and trajectories of a problem has been undertaken. Is it possible to identify how a proposal emerges as a “solution” proposal? What role does agency, bureaucracy, the advice system and political parties play? How and under what conditions does a proposal attract the attention of decision makers? What can be said about the “dynamic of the proposal” and the conditions of its failure or success? What is the relationship between a proposal and the actors who define it? Can we speak about the owner of a solution in the same way as the owner of a problem (Gusfield)? Drawing on Cobb and Elders’s studies mentioned above, we would like also to evaluate the politics of definition by analyzing the politicization process of a solution, the importance of definitional struggles, the complex relationship with experts and existing knowledge, and the feasibility argumentation (Majone). More generally, we would like to focus on the conflict and power dimension that the definition process of a solution generates.

The proposed workshop evolves from the interest to continue the discussion started at the IPPA 2017 Singapore International Seminar by our paper State management issues in Latin America. Assessing “patterns of mismanagement” in the Argentine national state (2007-2015). In that paper, we proposed to adapt existing public policy analysis strategies to detect state management issues during the “management-intense” phases of public policy design and implementation. We did this with an observation guide, derived from Elmore’s “historical mapping” (Elmore, 1979 and 1983) and contemporary developments of the stages approach to public policy (DeLeon, 2007, Knoepfel et al, 2006). With the help of this observation guide, we scoured information in a number of recent relevant public policy processes in Argentina, isolating a few recurrent and path-dependency generating problems that we proposed to call patterns of mismanagement. Although more substantive research is necessary to ascribe causes and consequences to such patterns, we put forward some educated conjectures about their genesis and inertial effects. Even if inextricably tied to politics and political regimes, these patterns showed an interesting “life of their own” that, we insisted, deserves better -if possible, comparative- understanding. We suggested that such new knowledge could provide keys to design better responses to public policy problems in the developing world, as well as to understand why and how classical capacity building strategies repeatedly seem to fail. We tried to show that, in most Latin American countries, the performances of state agencies in all sectors and levels of government are very frequently found to produce low, insufficient or unstable impacts, relative to public and expert expectations, as well as legally and/or ethically objectionable ways and procedures. Among most political scientists in our countries, these governance problems have been straightforwardly attributed to politics, as if the public policy process was a mechanical outcome of political arrangements and decisions. Political regimes, governments and governing coalitions, or even specific figureheads, are deemed either incapable to adequately plan the right strategies necessary to solve development management issues, or too capable to model the public policy processes according to their interests and will. Yet, relatively little interest is placed on what actually happens between political arrangements, decisions and outcomes. Probably because of the obvious methodological and political difficulties facing substantial research in the field, a surprisingly low number of studies actually dig relevant evidence about what goes on in the corridors and offices of public agencies, among decision makers, cadres and clerical workers. Classical policy analysis defined “good” governance as timely and cost-efficient solutions to problems (Lasswell, 1951; Lindblom, 1959), although it was soon acknowledged that the very nature of problems -let alone the solutions- vary according to interests and cognitive maps (Wildavsky, 1979). Within the political regimes where policy sciences developed -democracies, or more precisely, “polyarchies” (Dahl, 1971)- a considerable variety of interests and cognitive maps are tolerated, as long as basic sets of rules are respected, essentially: the rights to do politics, to maintain free flows of information, and to avoid excessive concentration of political power. In such regimes, “good” needs to carry an acceptable degree of “common”. Other public policy students directed their attention to “governance” and “state capacity”, as (more or less related) ideas capable of providing frameworks to answer questions about state performances and public policy results. At least since the provoking works of Michael Mann (1997, 1998, 2012 and 2013) comparative studies aimed at resuming Max Weber’s reasoning on states (1977), looking for keys to understand their success and failure as political organizations producing material and symbolic forms of power. If in Mann, infrastructural power is the effective combination of key sources of social power through political means (1997 and 2012), the question is how to get this combination, particularly when it does not seem to come out of contingency. Some of these studies worked on the classical idea of “good government” (Rosanvallon, 2015) or “governance” (Mayntz), in at least two senses: the ways in which policies are conducted in arenas or political regimes where power is not concentrated (Bovens, t'Hart & Peters, 2001; Benz & Papadopoulos, 2006; Peters & Pierre, 2006; all drawing on numerous previous authors); or the ways in which problems affect state performance (Tobelem, 1992; Evans, 1995; Grindle, 1996; ibidem). Most studies in this direction tended to look, at the same time, at institutional and operational, political and administrative dimensions of public policy, and invited to look into (though not necessarily did) the actual implementation processes (Saetren, 2005). On this issue of “public management”, within a relatively abundant literature (see Lynn, 2005 y 2006; and Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004 y 2009; for general approaches), key debates tended to identify the specificity of public management, and its changes through time (Hood, 1991; Frederickson, 1996); the problems of bureaucratic organizations that are, at the same time, subjects, stake-holders and objects of public policies (Moe, 1989; Olsen, 2005 and 2008); the issue of human resources, public service and civil service (Ingraham, 2005; Derlien & Peters, 2008); or the problem of inadequacy and obsolescence of public policy tools facing rapidly changing public problems (Dror, 2001). Closer to our interests, Bovens, t'Hart y Peters (2001) searched for patterns of success and failure, for selected European countries, in what they labelled governance capacities. Isolating relevant public policy fields where national and European Union collided, they traced the way in which national state agencies intervened. Interestingly, they identified significant asymmetries in the assessment of “success” and “failure” to programmatic achievements (relative to the actual problems policies supposedly attacked) and to political achievements (relative to the perceptions the public had on such “attacks”). “Success” was to be used only if the asymmetry between these two assessments was low enough. None of the factors underlying success and failure found in all areas and countries, though, were common enough to establish patterns capable of explanations in terms of causes and effects. But the very finding of factors stake-holders linked to success was, in itself, a worthy result. The factor found ranged from institutional “embeddedness” or propension to negotiation and agreement between different sectors and levels of government (as in Evans, 2005); to favourable contingency, as in “solutions finding problems” (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1989) or “windows of opportunity (Kingdon, 2010); including individual capacities in civil servants (Cohen, 1993), particularly in “political entrepreneurs” (as in Mintron & Norman, 2009); and the diffusion of ideas in Zeitgeiste (“spirits of the epoch”) through “advocacy coalitions” (Sabatier, 1998). In the same direction, Martin Painter and Jon Pierre (2015) suggested to speak of policy capacity as the ability to adequately combine classical elements of state capacity, political and administrative, achieving governing capacities. While policy capacities depend on stocks of resources moving in essentially contingent ways, governing capacities generate and accumulate adequate quantities and qualities of resources, controlling flows and pointing them toward desired directions, thus producing the expected outputs and outcomes (Painter & Pierre, 2015: 3-4). The effectiveness of these governing capacities can be measured through performance indicators and normative criteria, and in so doing, research can point to instruments and tools that recurrently (although not systemtically or mechanically) orient flows in successful ways, and can become key support systems for governments. Key support systems of these kind are merit-oriented civil services, decentralization, careful mastering of public finances, auditing and control techniques (all administrative capacities); collective decision schemes, planning and evaluation and coordination (all policy capacities); and consensus-oriented élites; political brokerage and consultation, homogeneous coercive forces, and performance-oriented bureaucracies (all state capacities). The problem of governance and state capacities is relevant for any state, but it has become paramount for those perceived as less performant. In Latin America, studies related to the role of management processes, in public policy performance, concentrated around a handful of perspectives, namely the attribution of state weaknesses and failures to the capture of civil servants and bureaucracies by interest groups or global center-periphery power networks, deriving in their lack of autonomy (Bresser-Pereira, 1977; Oszlak y O'Donnell, 1981; Medellín Torres, 1997 and 2004); the relationships between low performances with non-democratic rule (O'Donnell, 1993); the significant lack of quality management capacities among political parties and their decision-makers (Aguilar Villanueva, 1995; Lora, 2007); or the ways “bad politics” reflect in policy design and management (Scartascini, Spiller, Stein & Tommasi, 2011). From Colombia, Medellín Torres (1997 and 2004) suggested to pay attention to the perverse combination of high instability (states’ institutional and territorial fragmentation) and low autonomy (state agencies subordinated to intense and unsolved tensions and conflicts). Governance techniques and tactics lack information and fall prey to short term political needs. Overpoliticized by the clashes for the control of the state, policies lack the linear link between problem, design, implementation and effects, and institutions cannot achieve a minimum neutrality compatible with notions of common good. Other national studies compiled by Scartascini, Spiller, Stein and Tommasi (2011) agree. According to them, the institutional ways of Latin American “political game” (non-cooperative stake-holders and how they interact in political arenas) leave very limited space for transactions capable of brokering long term agreements, which puts important obstacles in the way policies can attack structural economic and social problems. Political regimes and the institutional fragility of laws and checks-balances schemes make this game even more complicated, producing perverse incentives and behaviours. Policies tend to present frequent patterns of instability, inflexibility, incoherence and discoordination, as well as high vulnerability to capture or co-optation from private or party interests. Argentine researchers tended to find similar problems, in terms of state regulation capacity (Oszlak and Felder, 2000), state/institutional capacity (Oszlak and Orellana, 2001; Alonso, 2007; Bertranou, 2015), “intra-bureaucratic” dynamics (Oszlak, 1999 and 2003); political regime dynamics (Oszlak, 2011); policy coherence (Martínez Nogueira, 2002 and 2010); or power relations (Acuña, 2013; 2014a and 2014b). Throughout the discussion that followed, colleagues from different countries underlined the interest for a wider call on researchers dealing with the subject. The workshop proposes to receive papers willing to share new light and/or to discuss existing research on the following main axes (among other related questions): On what conceptual/normative basis do we speak of good and bad governance in the developing world? What analytical strategies should be used to detect state capacity deficits and/or public policy management issues in organizations usually prone to lower reliance on protocols? Is it possible to isolate recurrent or path-dependent management problems independent of specific policy sectors, governments and/or countries of the developing world? Are there patterns of mismanagement or bad governance that can be traced to specific regions and/or political regimes? Should the result meet our expectations, we commit to organize the logistics and potential support for a collective book on the matter. References Acuña, Carlos (compilador) (2013): ¿Cuánto importan las instituciones? Gobierno, Estado y actores en la política argentina; Siglo XXI - OSDE, Buenos Aires. Acuña, Carlos (compilador) (2014a): El Estado en acción. Fortalezas y debilidades de las políticas sociales en Argentina; Siglo XXI - OSDE, Buenos Aires. Acuña, Carlos (compilador) (2014b): Dilemas del Estado argentino. Política exterior, económica y de infraestructura en el siglo XXI; Siglo XXI - OSDE, Buenos Aires. Aguilar Villanueva, Luis (1993): “Estudio introductorio”; in Aguilar Villanueva, Luis (editor): Problemas públicos y agenda de gobierno; Porrúa, México. Alonso, Guillermo (editor) (2007): Capacidades estatales, instituciones y política social; Prometeo, Buenos Aires. Benz, Arthur & Papadopoulos, Yannis (editores) (2006): Governance and Democracy. Comparing national, European and international experiences; Routledge, New York. Benz, Arthur & Papadopoulos, Yannis (2006): "Governance and Democracy: Concepts and Key Issues"; in Benz & Papadopoulos (op. cit.). Bertranou, Julián (2015): "Capacidad estatal: revisión del concepto y algunos ejes de análisis y debate", in Revista Estado y Políticas Públicas N° 4. Bovens, Mark; t'Hart, Peter & Peters, Guy (2001): "Analysing governance success and failure in six European states"; in Bovens, Mark; t'Hart, Peter & Peters, Guy (editores): Success and Failure in Public Governance: A Comparative Analysis; Edward Elgar, Cheltenham-Northampton. Bresser-Pereira, Luiz Carlos (1977): Estado e Subdesenvolvimento Industrializado; Editora Brasiliense, São Paulo. Cohen, Michael; March, James & Olsen, Johan (1972): "A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice"; in Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, N° 1. Cohen, Steven (1993): "Defining and Measuring Effectiveness in Public Management"; in Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 17, N° 1. Dahl, Robert (1971): Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition; New Haven-London, Yale University Press. De Leon, Peter (2007): "The stages approach to the policy process: what has it done? Where is it going?"; in Sabatier, Paul (editor): Theories of the Public Policy Process; Westview Press, Boulder. Derlien, Hans-Dietrich & Peters, Guy (2008): The State at Work; Volume 1: Public Sector Employment in Ten Western Countries; Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Dror, Yehezkel (2001): The Capacity to Govern. A Report to the Club of Rome; Frank Cass, London-Portland. Elmore, Richard (1979): “Backward Mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions”; en Political Science Quaterly, 94:7. Elmore, Richard (1983): “Forward and Backward Mapping: Reversible Logic in the Analysis of Public Policy”; en International Workshop on Interorganizational Implementation; Rotterdam, Erasmus University. Evans, Peter (1995): Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation; Princeton University Press. Ferlie, Ewan; Lynn, Laurence Jr. & Pollitt, Christopher (editors) (2005): The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford University Press. Frederickson, H. George (1996): "Comparing the Reinventing Government Movement with the New Public Administration"; in Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, No. 3. Grindle, Merilee (1996): Challenging the State. Crisis and Innovation in Latin America and Africa; Cambridge University Press. Hood, Christopher (1991): "A Public Management for All Seasons?"; in Public Administration, Vol. 69. Ingraham, Patricia (2005): "Striving for Balance. Reforms in Human Resources Management"; in Ferlie et altrii (op. cit.). Kingdon, John (1995): Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies; Harper-Collins, Nueva York. Knoepfel, Peter; Larrue Corinne; Varone, Frédéric y Sacard, Jean-François (2006): Analyse et Pilotage des Politiques Publiques; Glarus, Verlag Rüegger. Lasswell, Harold (1951): ‘The policy orientation’, in Lerner, Daniel & Lasswell, Harold (editores): The Policy Sciences; Stanford University Press. Lindblom, Charles (1959): “The science of 'muddling through'”; en Public Administration Review Vol. 19, N° 2. Lora, Eduardo (editor) (2007): El estado de las reformas del estado en América Latina; Banco Mundial - Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo - Mayol, Washington DC - Bogotá. Lynn, Laurence Jr. (2005): "Public Management: A Concise History of the Field"; in Ferlie et altrii (op. cit.). Lynn, Laurence Jr. (2006): Public Management: Old and New; New York & London, Routledge. Mann, Michael (1997): The sources of social power. Volume I: A history of power from the beginning to AD 1760; Cambridge University Press [1986]. Mann, Michael (1998): The sources of social power. Volume II: The rise of classes and nation-states, 1760-1914; Cambridge University Press [1993]. Mann, Michael (2012): The sources of social power. Volume III: Global Empires and Revolution, 1890-1945; Cambridge University Press [1993]. Mann, Michael (2013): The sources of social power. Volume IV: Globalizations, 1945-2011; Cambridge University Press. March, James & Olsen, Johan (1989): Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, Free Press, Nueva York. Martínez Nogueira, Roberto (2002): “Las administraciones públicas paralelas y las capacidades institucionales: la gestión por proyectos y las unidades ejecutoras”, in Reforma y Democracia N° 24. Martínez Nogueira, Roberto (2010): “La coherencia y la coordinación de políticas públicas. Aspectos conceptuales y experiencias”; en Acuña, Carlos (compilador): Los desafíos de la coordinación y la integralidad de las políticas y gestión pública en América Latina; Proyecto de Modernización del Estado, Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros de la República Argentina, Buenos Aires. Mayntz, Renate (2006): “Governance en el Estado moderno” [2003]; in POSTData N° 11. Medellín Torres (1997): "Inestabilidad, incertidumbre y autonomía restringida: Elementos para una teoría de la estructuración de Políticas Públicas en Países de Baja Autonomía Gubernativa"; in Reforma y Democracia N° 8. Medellín Torres (2004): "La política de las políticas públicas: propuesta teórica y metodológica para el estudio de las políticas públicas en países de frágil institucionalidad"; in Serie Políticas Sociales, N° 93, CEPAL, Santiago de Chile. Mintron, Michael & Norman, Philippa (2009): "Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change"; in Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 37, N° 4. Moe, Terry (1989): “The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure”; in Chubb, John & Peterson, Paul (editores): Can the Government Govern?; Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC. O’Donnell, Guillermo (1993): “Acerca del Estado, la democratización y algunos problemas conceptuales. Una perspectiva latinoamericana con referencias a países poscomunistas”; in Desarrollo Económico, vol. 33, N° 130. Olsen, Johan (2005): "Maybe It Is Time To Rediscover Bureaucracy"; in Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory N° 16. Olsen, Johan (2008): "The Ups and Downs of Bureaucratic Organization"; in Annual Review of Political Science Vol. 11. Oszlak, Oscar (1999): "Quemar las naves", en Aportes para el Estado y la Administración Gubernamental, Año 6, N° 14. Oszlak, Oscar (2003): "Estados capaces. Un desafío de la integración"; in Blejmar, Bernardo (compilador): Liderazgo y Desarrollo Sustentable; Manantial, Buenos Aires. Oszlak, Oscar (2011): "Burocracia estatal: política y políticas públicas" [2005]; in POSTData N° 11. Oszlak, Oscar y Felder, Ruth (2000): "A capacidade de regulação estatal na Argentina", en Revista do Serviço Público, Año 51, N° 1. Oszlak Oscar & O'Donnell, Guillermo (1981): “Estado y políticas estatales en América Latina: hacia una estrategia de investigación”; in Documentos GE-CLACSO N° 4, CEDES, Buenos Aires. Oszlak, Oscar & Orellana, Edgardo (2001): "El análisis de capacidad institucional. Aplicación de la metodología SADCI [Sistema de Análisis de Capacidad Institucional]"; Buenos Aires, unpublished. Painter, Martin y Pierre, Jon (2005): Challenges to State Policy Capacity. Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives; Houndmills, Palgrave-Macmillan. Peters, Guy & Pierre, Jon (2006): "Governance, Accountability and Democratic Legitimacy"; in Benz & Papadopoulos (op. cit.). Pollitt, Christopher & Bouckaert, Geert (2004): Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis; Oxford University Press. Pollitt, Christopher & Bouckaert, Geert (2009): Continuity and Change in Public Policy and Management; Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Rosanvallon, Pierre (2015): Le bon gouvernement; Paris, Seuil. Sabatier, Paul (1998): "The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe", in Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 5, N° 1. Saetren, Harald (2005): "Facts and Myths about Research on Public Policy Implementation: Out-of-Fashion, Allegedly Dead, But Still Very Much Alive and Relevant"; in Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 33, N° 4. Scartascini, Carlos; Spiller, Pablo; Stein, Ernesto & Tommasi, Mariano (editores) (2011): El juego político en América Latina: ¿cómo se deciden las políticas públicas?; BID-Mayol, Washington DC. Stein, Ernesto & Tommasi, Mariano (2006): "La política de las políticas públicas"; in Política y Gobierno Vol. XIII, N° 2. Stein, Ernesto & Tommasi, Mariano (2011): "Un país sin rumbo. ¿Cómo se hacen las políticas púbicas en Argentina?; in Scartascini, Spiller, Stein & Tommasi (op. cit.). Tobelem, Alain (1992): "Institutional Capacity Analysis and Development Systems (ICADS): Operational Manual"; World Bank LATP Occasional Papers N° 9, Washington DC. Weber, Max (1977): Economía y sociedad. Esbozo de sociología comprensiva [1922]; México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.Wildavsky, Aaron (1979): Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis; Little-Brown, Boston.

What research question are participants expected to address? These can be theoretical research questions or methodological issues. Many of the traditional theories of the policy process emerged in the pluralistic, federal political system of the United States. In the past, we have debated whether these theories apply to the European context. Yet, many of these theories are applied more in Europe today than in the United States. New questions are now emerging about how applicable these theories are to non-western democracies and other forms of government. Europe has a different state tradition than the US originally captured in the concept of corporatism as opposed to pluralism. Pluralism suggests a free market of competing interests with a winning interest that will determine the final decision. The state’s role is reduced to assure its implementation be it by policy production or by service provision through non state actors. The basic theoretical tenets of pluralism have recently been challenged more recently by US authors such as Hacker and Pierson (2014) in their writings on “The Rebirth of Policy-Focused Analysis” in which they emphasize the notions of policy as terrain and policy as prize implying that democratic systems must be understood from a policy sector-specific regime perspective rather than from an institutionalist system point of view. Orren and Skowronek (2017) use a very similar approach for a normative critique of American democracy in their book on “The Policy State”. On the other side of the Atlantic, original corporatism displayed a very different view than pluralism with the state as coercive coordinater between opposed interests. The role of government is more active than in pluralism. The “shadow of hierarchy” is darker in corporatism. The strong state can force interests to find a compromise or in the case of no agreement, coerce a top-down solution. The literature on new modes of governance questions both theories in that societal capacity of self-regulation is considered a self-sufficient substitute to state action. The “return of the state” literature, however, has put this far-reaching assumption in question again in more recent times. Current theories of the policy process benefit from a strong hybridity and exchange between the two sides of the Atlantic. Still, the original opposition between pluralism and corporatism is conducive for the overall question of the portability of theories of the policy process. Given the authoritative literature rooting in pluralism and its wide application in contexts other than the US, we must raise a number of questions crucial for the validity of current policy studies, such as: · What are the basic tenets of the authoritative theories of the policy process? · Should and can we apply them across different contexts? · Are they adding insights to the European context? · How applicable are they to other world regions and autocratic regimes? · What is lost and gained when we do or don’t apply them in new settings? These and related questions shall be addressed in our workshop. In which context does this topic take place? The proposal should present the context of the topic proposed and justify why, given the context, the question is relevant. We seek contributions from Western and non-Western political system contexts. We also invite papers that address these questions for different theories of the policy process. What is the scientific relevance of the question? The presentation should provide a brief state-of-the-art and identify specific contributions expected from workshop participants. The questions addressed in this research are relevant because most of current policy studies employ theories of the policy process developed in the US. Whether these studies contribute to knowledge largely depends on whether the underlying assumptions are valid in different contexts. This is true for the European context but even more so for emerging policy studies in authoritarian and semi-democratic systems in the non-western world. How will this workshop build on existing research? What hypotheses do the chairs seek to explore? What makes these hypotheses original and how will they further the available research on the key issue raised? Weible and Sabatier’s seminal book on the Theories of the Policy Process has been formative for a whole generation of policy scholars that currently shape the way we study Policy and Policy change. The volume assembles the most solid state of art and serves as reference for any scholar worldwide addressing questions of policy change. The theories assembled in the book spread and enter textbooks in and outside the anglophone sphere. These theories hence can be considered the current canon of policy theory. We depart from this canon. The workshop is meant as a test of the null hypothesis that the canon applies ahistorically and independent of system context. What types of contributions would interest the panel chairs? The presentation must describe the kind of papers the chairs would like to receive: empirical, theoretical, methodological? We invite a wide range of papers from the broadest possible range of contexts. This includes critical discussions of the basic assumptions of current policy theories, theoretical modifications of the canon, textual analyses of modifications of the theories over time, and critical and non-critical empirical applications of the canon theories in different political system contexts. Which methods will the workshop use? The document should explain the dynamics of the sessions, final outcomes, follow-up and possibility of publication. The workshop is dedicated to methodological openness and welcomes papers from all approaches. A special issue is envisaged. Further publications may be considered. If the chairs have already identified possible participants, they should provide the titles of the paper proposals and the authors' references. At all events, this list of paper proposals must contain a maximum of 10 papers before it can be opened to other participants. We have not contacted paper givers yet and aim to be as candid as possible. Possible participants are: · Claudio Radaelli · Wayne Parsons · Peter Mortenson · Fritz Sager · Chris Weible · Reimut Zohlnhöfer · Marc Smyrl · Nils Bandelow

Overall objective This workshop will aim to tackle three main topics. The first one is the perception of the role of actors in the main theories or approaches for the study of public policy. The second one is related to the several dimensions involved in the role of actors in policy processes as compared to other factors, for instance institutions or junctures. The third issue is the methodology for the analysis of policy actors. The overall objective is to set off a more systematic and coherent research agenda which could lead to the further theoretical clarification and empirical support of the role of actors in the policy process and politics in general. Context, state of the art and scientific relevance Although by no means the only perspective, in the last decades the neo-institutionalist approach (in its three versions, sociologic, historic and rational choice) has exerted a great influence in the study of social and political processes. In turn, the comparison of dominant theories of the policy process (Sabatier and Weible 2017) shows that they mainly focus on the systemic level of analysis. Even if these theories take into account individual actors (for instance policy entrepreneurs in the multiple stream framework or policy brokers in the advocacy coalition approach) or collective agents (for instance interest groups and administrations in the punctuated equilibrium theory), they don’t directly address the role of actors in the policy processes as compared to other factors, such as institutions or junctures. After more than two decades in which structural-centered approaches brought a great deal of the attention in social sciences, more recently the importance of actors has started to emerge, for instance in revised neo-institutionalist perspectives (Scharpf 1997; Mahoney and Thelen 2010) as well as studies on political leadership (Edwards 2009; Helms 2012), neopopulist leaders (Moffit 2016) or public policy (Knoepfel, Larrue, Varone and Hill 2011) In fact, it can be said that there is in the social sciences a long theoretical tradition stressing the importance of agents´ strategic action. Although it goes back to Machiavelli and Weber, this perspective started to slowly reemerge in various fields after Arrow showed the instability of social choice, for instance in political science (Schattschneider 1961; Riker 1986) or the sociology of organizations (Crozier and Friedberg 1980). As it can be seen, since some time ago several authors have made important contributions for the development of an actor-centered approach. However, we believe that such contributions still do not offer a precise enough set of traits of agents´ action as to allow for a systematic comparison of cases in order to develop a clearer actor-centered framework for the understanding of policy processes. This workshop aims at discussing the ways in which such framework can be better developed; thus, we expect it will make a key contribution to the study of public policy processes and political processes more generally. Main hypotheses The hypotheses this workshop wants to explore are related to the idea that actors are key factors for the adequate explanation of policy processes. The main tenant we start from is that although institutions are no doubt key factors for the understanding of political or policy equilibrium, such equilibrium is not self-sustaining; in other words, it is also kept by the strategic moves of its upholders against its opponents. Likewise, institutional decline may encourage but cannot directly produce policy change, which requires the intervention of actors. In turn, ideas may be floating around but it is actors who choose them (or not) to define the direction and intensity of change. Therefore, it is expected that the workshop shows how within institutional or ideological settings agents enjoy important “degrees of freedom” (Archer 1995), based on the accumulation of specific resources, and in which ways their decisions are crucial for policy outcomes. In short, instead of conflating structure and agency and falling into one or other determinism, the actor-centered perspective argues that institutions, ideologies, junctures, etc. are important because they frame agent´s perceptions and strategies, but such contextual factors do not determine specific courses of action: agents still have to choose among different options and the specific way (strategic or not) they do so is a key factor precipitating or precluding certain policy outcomes. Organization of the workshop The workshop will be organized around three topics, corresponding to three workshop´s sessions: 1. Actors in approaches of the policy process. In this session the aim is to discuss the role assigned to actors in dominant theories of the policy process, such as neo-institutionalism, advocacy coalition framework, policy narratives, multiple stream framework, etc. The session would address the following questions: What kind of actors (individual/collective, informal/organized, local/national/international) are taken into account in the theories of the policy process? How are they defined and analyzed? Are actors considered as an explaining factor of policy change (or continuity)? 2. Characteristics and role of actors in the policy process. This session is focused on the empirical study of the role of specific kinds of actors in the policy process: individual actors (policy brokers, policy entrepreneurs, political leaders) and/or collective actors (parties, interest groups, networks), in relation to the following questions: How far can policy actors be considered as an explaining factor of the policy process (or part of it)? What are we referring to when focusing on agents, i.e. ideas, interests, strategies, resources or capacities? To what extent does their role depend on context? What should be considered as an actor: individuals, networks, groups? What is their relationship with stability and change? How is it possible to explain the role of these actors in the policy process (holding of specific resources, strategic capacities, institutional positions, policy learning, policy discourses, etc.)? 3. Methods for the analysis of policy actors. The core questions of this session are: What methodologies better help to identify, characterize and understand the role of actors in the policy process? Is it possible to combine them? An analysis of policy actors supposes to rely on methods able to analyze topics such as the trajectories and resources of individual actors in order to understand their involvement in the policy process; the relations between actors, especially personal links and shared policy conceptions and discourses; organized actors, especially their functioning and internal relations; and the involvement of policy actors at different stages of the policy process. Type of papers, dynamics of sessions and expected result Given the above mentioned three sessions of the workshop, the kind of papers that we expect to receive are theoretical, empirical and methodological. The dynamics of the sessions would be organized around several sets of papers within each session, followed by short reactions by one discussant and the rest of the participants within each set; each session will be concluded by a general discussion. In the months following the workshop, the chairs will follow-up on the development of the drafts presented, so that a collective book “bringing back” actors in the study of the policy process can be presented to a publishing house in 2019. Possible participants (to be confirmed) First session 1. Actors and neo-institutional approaches (Raul Pacheco-Vega, Center for Economic Research, Aguascalientes, Mexico) 2. Actors and ideational/cognitive perspectives on the policy process (Melina Rocha, Getulio Vargas Foundation, Rio de Janeiro) 3. Actors and interpretative approaches on the policy process (Jennifer Dodge, State University of New York-Albany) 4. Actors and the multiple stream approach (Ana Diaz, Center for Economic Research, Mexico City) 5. Actors and the policy instruments perspective (Michael Howlett, John Fraser University, Vancouver) Second session 1. Actors as veto-players (Larry Brown, Columbia University) 2. Transnational networks of actors (Osmany Porto de Oliveira, Federal University of Sao-Paulo) 3. Intermediary role of actors and political work (Andy Smith, Sciences Po Bordeaux, France) 4. Actors and strategic interaction (Jose-Luis Mendez, El Colegio de Mexico) Third session 1. Sociology of elites methods and the analysis of programmatic actors (William Genieys, University of Montpellier and Patrick Hassenteufel, University of Versailles, France) 2. Integrating psychological dimensions in the empirical analysis of policy actors (Nils Bandelow and Johanna Hornung, University of Braunschweig, Germany) 3. Methodologies for the analysis of actor’s policy learning (Stéphane Moyson, Catholic University of Leuwen, Belgium) References Archer, M., 1995, Realist Social Theory. The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Crozier, M. and E. Friedberg, 1980, Actors and Systems. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Edwards, G., The Strategic President. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Helms, L., 2012, Comparative Political Leadership. London, Palgrave. Knoepfel, P. C. Larrue, F. Varone and M. Hill, 2011, Public Policy Analysis. Bristol, Policy Press. Mahoney, J. and K. Thelen (eds.) 2010, Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Moffit, B., 2016, The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford, Cal., Stanford University Press. Riker, W., 1986, The Art of Political Manipulation. New Heaven, Yale University Press. Sabatier, P. and C. Weible, 2017, Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Westview. Scharpf, F., 1997, Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, Westview. Schattschneider, E.E., 1961, The semi-sovereign people. New York, Rinehart and Winston.

Policy Feedback and Policy Dynamics: Methodological and Theoretical Challenges Much has been written about policy feedback in general and, more specifically, how existing policies can shape politics and future policy developments (for extensive reviews see Béland 2010; Burroughs 2017). As such, policy feedback is a key concept in policy research across a number of disciplines and policy areas, yet it remains largely undertheorized and unspecified from a conceptual and methodological standpoint. Also, because of this lack of common theoretical, conceptual and methodological ground, empirical studies of policy feedback across disciplines and policy areas are hard to compare, compromising the investigation of pressing feedback-related policy questions on critically important fields including climate, environmental politics and healthcare reform. Recent policy feedback research has begun to fill these gaps by shifting focus towards explaining policy dynamics (in the form of stability and change) rather than effects on actors. In their agenda-setting paper, Jordan and Matt (2014) sum up this new perspective by arguing that “in order to count as a policy feedback, the effect (or more likely effects) should have a politically significant impact not only on the original actors at t+1, but also on the original policy” (p 231). Starting from the realization that policies always induce a combination of self-reinforcing and self-undermining feedback processes (Weaver 2010), policy feedback research has expanded its theoretical toolkit for explaining policy change: Some researchers have argued for distinguishing between pre- and retrospective (alternatively: enactment and post-enactment) feedback processes (Burroughs 2017; Patashnik and Zelizer 2013) since actors’ positions can change due to both negative or positive feedback. Others have begun addressing the conditionality of feedback effects, i.e. how endogenous feedback processes and exogenous factors work in combination to determine policy change (e.g. Schmidt and Sewerin 2017). Skogstad (2017) argues specifically that including conditionality of feedback effects into account can offer leverage to analyze both incremental and major policy change without having to rely on ad hoc exogenous variables. Finally, Jacobs and Weaver (2015) draw attention to the need to study more closeliy negative, self-undermining feedback that sets in motion processes that undermine a policy’s political viability over time, rendering it unstable and vulnerable to change. They point out that there is little conceptual justification for associating positive feedback mechanisms with the outcome of policy stability, or negative feedback mechanisms with policy change. Instead, they argue – similar to Jordan and Matt (2014) – that positive feedback can be a key driver of policy change, while negative feedback can be a powerful stabilizing force. Thus, recent scholarship challenges long-held assumptions about feedback, particularly how positive feedbacks can be self-reinforcing when they serve to stabilize or expand early policy choices and that lock-in policies in a country and result in stable policy regimes (Pierson 1993, 2000). Despite these theoretical and conceptual advances, policy feedback research still treats ‘policy’ or ‘policy change’ in different ways, often quite abstractly. In the words of Jordan and Matt (2014, p. 235), “to [Pierson’s] evident frustration […], the policy feedback literature has continued to focus on rather broad elements of policy such as programmes and policy regimes” (see for example Weaver 2010; May and Jochim 2013). There is thus a disconnection to developments in policy research in general and policy change studies in particular where both conceptual (e.g. Howlett 2014; Howlett and Cashore 2009; Cashore and Howlett 2007; Schaffrin, Sewerin and Seubert 2015) and empirical studies (e.g. Schaffrin, Sewerin and Seubert 2014) contribute to a revived interest in the study of policy design. The workshop to advance this disconnect by focusing on the micro-level policy design elements such as settings and calibrations (Howlett and Cashore 2009), which stands in contrast to the policy feedback literature that focused on the meso-level of policy instrument types or the macro-level of policy regimes (e.g. Weaver 2010). The lack of attention towards the micro-level of policy design changes means that both theoretical assumptions about and conceptualizations of feedback effects on policy design are missing. Therefore, we argue that the integration of a policy design perspective into policy feedback research is crucial in overcoming existing theoretical, conceptual and empirical bottlenecks stymieing the further development of the field. Hencee key bottleneck to be overcome is the dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: knowing exactly what changes is a prerequisite for follow-up why and how questions involving feedback. Tackling this empirical data challenge would enable for incorporating systematic quantitative approaches for the analysis of policy dynamics (see Schaffrin, Sewerin and Seubert 2015). Against this background, the prime objective of this workshop is bringing together these literatures and scholarly communities. To this end, we propose four broad research questions (see below) that aim at addressing key theoretical and methodological issues stemming from the analysis of policy feedback. We thus seek to facilitate the shift to systematically studying feedbacks in relation to policy dynamics rather than actors or policy outcomes. Greater conceptual and empirical clarity in the study of feedbacks will also encourage the development of empirical studies, both in the form of encompassing case studies and in the form of systematic and comparative large(r)-n analyses. Further developing feedback research is of high relevance not only for theoretical but also for practical reasons: A better understanding of the relation between policy feedback and policy stability and change would allow for developing better recommendations for designing long-term effective policies and policy mixes. This is especially important in policy areas where fast and deep transitions are needed, such as in the field climate and environmental policy, or where existing feedback processes stabilize ineffective policy regimes that affect the lives of many people, such as in the field of health care or social security. The argument for the intentional design of ‘sticky’ policies that are resilient to efforts of revoking them (Jordan and Matt 2014) or the call for developing an ‘applied forward reasoning’ approach to policy analysis that enables to overcome ‘super wicked’ policy challenges by generating path-dependent policy interventions that can ‘constrain our future collective selves’ (Levin, Cashore, Bernstein, and Auld 2013) are very prominent examples of agenda-setting arguments that would profit from a better understanding of feedback effects. Research Questions, Types of Contributions Invited and Publication Plans These broad research questions will guide the workshop: 1) How can we rethink the concept of policy feedback to study both stability and change? Key point here is to think about policy feedback in the form of long-term loops rather than short-term feedback cycles, i.e., researchers are invited to investigate how policy changes at t1, t2, t3 etc. Both theoretical/conceptual and empirical work that engages with long-term temporal policy dynamics is invited. 2) More concretely, what are the mechanisms behind feedback processes? Does policy feedback expand or narrow policy options and why? Our conceptual understanding of feedback mechanisms remains limited, especially in relation to policy design. We encourage both theoretical/conceptual contributions that engage with feedback and policy design and empirical investigations of pre- and/or post-enactment dynamics in any specific policy field. 3) What is the impact of policy design and instrument types on policy feedback? To bring together the literatures on policy design and policy feedback, we invite contributions that discuss potential effects of policy design characteristics on long-term policy dynamics. This could be done either in a conceptual way, building on the extant body of policy design literature, or empirically, e.g. in the form of an inductive research design. 4) How do we address key methodological issues such as how to measure policy output and/or change to move the policy feedback agenda forward while fostering a greater diversity of research methods in the area? This question is intimately linked to the dependent variable problem in the study of policy change. We invite contributions that develop conceptual and measurement approaches to assess policy change in a systematic manner across policy fields or that critically apply existing measurement approaches to relevant case studies. The intention is to integrate the received contributions into a special issue of a peer-reviewed policy journal. This special issue should strike the balance between clear theoretical/conceptual work and sound and relevant empirical applications and analyses in order to clearly define a research agenda on policy feedback and policy design. References Béland, Daniel. 2010. “Reconsidering Policy Feedback: How Policies Affect Politics.” Administration & Society 42(5): 568-590 Burroughs, Richard. 2017. “Positive and Negative Feedback in Policy Formulation.” In Handbook of Policy Formulation, eds. Michael Howlett and Ishani Mukherjee. Edward Elgar, 63–79. Cashore, Benjamin, and Michael Howlett. 2007. "Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest forestry." American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 532-551. Howlett, Michael. 2014. “From the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ Policy Design: Design Thinking beyond Markets and Collaborative Governance.” Policy Sciences 47(3): 187–207. Howlett, Michael, and Benjamin Cashore. 2009. “The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11(1): 33–46. Jordan, Andrew, and Elah Matt. 2014. “Designing Policies That Intentionally Stick: Policy Feedback in a Changing Climate.” Policy Sciences 47(3): 227–47. Levin, Kelly, Benjamin Cashore, Steven Bernstein, and Graeme Auld. 2012. “Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems: Constraining our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change.” Policy sciences 45(2), 123-152. May, Peter J., and Ashley E. Jochim. 2013. “Policy Regime Perspectives: Policies, Politics, and Governing.” Policy Studies Journal 41(3): 426–52. Patashnik, Eric M., and Julian E. Zelizer. 2013. “The Struggle to Remake Politics: Liberal Reform and the Limits of Policy Feedback in the Contemporary American State.” Perspectives on Politics 11(04): 1071–87.. Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause. Policy Feedback and Political Change.” World Politics 45: 595–628. ———. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94(2): 251–67. Schaffrin, André, Sebastian Sewerin, and Sibylle Seubert. 2014. “The Innovativeness of National Policy Portfolios – Climate Policy Change in Austria, Germany, and the UK.” Environmental Politics 23(5): 860–83. ———. 2015. “Toward a Comparative Measure of Climate Policy Output.” Policy Studies Journal 43(2): 257–82. Schmidt, Tobias S., and Sebastian Sewerin. 2017. “Technology as a Driver of Climate and Energy Politics.” Nature Energy 2: 17084. Skogstad, Grace. 2017. “Policy Feedback and Self-Reinforcing and Self-Undermining Processes in EU Biofuels Policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 24(1): 21–41 Weaver, R. Kent. 2010. “Paths and Forks or Chutes and Ladders?: Negative Feedbacks and Policy Regime Change.” Journal of Public Policy 30(02): 137–62.

ContextThe complexity of the world and inevitability of human error make learning essential for overcoming challenges that emerge when dealing with politics and public policy. People learn about the severity and causes of problems that trouble a society and, given crowded agendas, adjust their political strategies for attracting the attention of government officials. The policy process is about power, but it is also an attempt to create, validate, assemble and distribute learning about public policies. The formulation of public policies builds on learning from experiences of other policies, and the design and implementation of policies are constantly adapted over time through various feedback mechanisms. Learning from past mistakes at home and from abroad represents a hope that better policies will develop in the future. Although this is desirable, and is foundational to the aspirations of the evidence-based policy agenda of many governments, that’s not how learning typically happens in the real world of public policy. Politicians may learn how to tweak policies to win the next elections rather than to improve. Policy bureaucracies may look at the wrong examples, they may not learn the right lessons, and they often extrapolate from the past and from abroad without taking into account the mechanisms of learning and the role of the institutional context. Add to this that although we have seen many recent examples of attempts to advance the theory of policy learning, we still have some building blocks but not a theory of why learning emerges or fails, and its consequences for power, policy improvement, and the quality of democracy. In short, this is an exciting moment in the development of the field, but we need to be more systematic on causes and consequences of learning if this has to become a new theory of the policy process. Even if our ambition is more modestly to perfect our knowledge of learning within the established theories of the policy process, rather than creating a new one, we have to assemble the building blocks more systematically, in terms of micro-foundations, learning in organizations, and how group learning becomes policy learning and, sometimes, social learning. Another important claim we make is that political science needs the contribution of other disciplines: interdisciplinary work is not an added dimension to our work in this field, it is essential to the development of the field. Let us briefly see how we got where are now. Policy learning designates the cognitive and social dynamic leading policy actors to revise or strengthen their policy beliefs and preferences over time (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2013; Moyson & Scholten, 2018). Karl W. Deutsch was arguably the first to express concern for learning in politics and policy in his cybernetic theory of government, where the role of ‘feedback’ and ‘steering’ to explain (and enhance) governmental ‘learning capacity’ was pinpointed (Deutsch 1963). The attention for learning resonates in Heclo’s work, who emphasized that politics is not only about power but also about beliefs and the management of uncertainty (Heclo 1974). For institutions to operate or for policies to be made, a better understanding of public problems and of their possible solutions is necessary. For this, knowledge must be created, assimilated, and organized. Consequently, policy actors puzzle over policy problems and solutions, as well as ‘powering’. At a similar period, Walker (1974) showed that the ‘management of ideas’ also allows to exert power. Controlling ideas means controlling uncertainties. In other words, we need to explain the process which “leads actors to select a different view of how things happen (‘learning that’) and what courses of action should be taken (‘learning how’)” (Zito and Schout 2009: 1104). In the 1990s, authors like Bennet, Howlett, May and others developed the categorical approach to policy learning. Essentially, they broke down the single entity of learning by considering different types, and identified the prima facie evidence that would lead us to recognize a type of learning as ‘political’, ‘social’, or ‘instrumental’. This was the period where the interest in the politics of policy learning emerged consistently in the field. At the same time, another strand of literature looked at the cross-national diffusion of learning, or more exactly at the consequences of spatial interdependence for learning processes and outcomes. Concepts like ‘policy transfer’ (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000), ‘policy diffusion’ (Marsh and Sharman 2009), ‘lesson-drawing’ (Rose 1991), and ‘policy convergence’ (Bennett 1991; Knill 2005) have become popular. These concepts refer to processes through which decisions are made in one institutional setting according to decisions previously made in another one. Policy transfer has early been referred to as a process in which the decision-makers in one institutional setting ‘learn’ from the policy decisions made in another setting (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000). Learning from early adopters is also widely recognized as a mechanism of policy diffusion next to competition, imitation and coercion (e.g. Shipan and Volden 2008). However, serious consideration for individual and collective learning processes allowing transfer has emerged only recently (Gilardi 2010; Meseguer 2004; Volden et al. 2008). ‘Lesson drawing’ (Rose 1991) And extrapolation models (Bardach, 2004) have received much of the attention because they involve an ideal-typical form of learning: this concept translates the will, effective cognitive ability, and practical capacity to draw lessons from other institutional settings in order to meet a given objective in one’s own institutional setting (e.g. Gilardi et al. 2009). The difficulty with this strand was to make sure that the cross-national patterns identified empirically were truly representative of learning processes rather than other processes. Finally, over the last twenty-years governments and international organizations embraced the evidence-based policy agenda, with results that are at best mixed – possibly because of the weak and simplistic theoretical foundations of this agenda. Another domain where there has been progress is within theories of the policy process developed by political scientists. Colleagues working on the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), the narrative policy framework, and other established theories have contributed with empirical and conceptual insights to our understanding of beliefs systems, knowledge utilization, the presentation of knowledge in policy narratives, and mechanisms of learning. Beyond political science, there has been an exciting number of scholarly waves concerned with learning. An example is the organizational and managerial approach. Grounded in organizational theory, authors like Metcalfe (1993) Have underlined the importance of learning processes for governmental innovation. Etheredge and Short (1983) have also proposed the concept of ‘governmental learning’ to name “the process by which governments increase their intelligence and sophistication and in this manner enhance the effectiveness of their actions” (Etheredge and Short 1983: 77–8). On the other hand, the adoption of a ‘learning perspective’ on the behaviour of organizations has also contributed significantly to the field. Reviews of this field include Easterby-Smith and Lyles (2011) or Argote (2013), for example. Organizational learning is concerned with all organizations, but there is a clear niche of public administration research on specific forms of learning in public organizations (e.g. Common 2004; Gilson et al. 2009; Moynihan and Landuyt 2009). Other important disciplines include cognitive psychology, evolutionary and experimental economics, and adult education. Sociology and network theory and models have provided fundamental tools to understand learning. In conclusion, the scene is set for interdisciplinary work. Experiments have become a classic way to ascertain whether learning follows the pathways hypothesized by political scientists, or other, intriguing but less explored micro and organizational mechanisms (Kamkhaji and Radaelli 2017). The logic of psychological biases is helpful to further our understanding of cross-coalitions relations (e.g., Fisher et al. 2016; Leach & Sabatier, 2005). Psychological heuristics show why policy learning and its consistency are rather limited (e.g. Moyson, 2017). Several recent papers provide syntheses of recent theoretical developments related to policy learning (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2013, 2017; Moyson & Scholten, 2018; Moyson et al., 2017; Heikkila & Gerlak, 2013). Expected contributions and publication projectBuilding policy learning as a theory, i.e. a privileged lens to explain policy processes, decisions and outcomes, is a very exciting prospect at this moment in time, but it is still work in progress. And we need help from disciplines other than political science. Any strong framework, or lens, or theory emerges from the right articulation of existing bodies of work and their application to new questions and/or new contexts. For this workshop we welcome political science-inspired papers on the micro-foundations of learning, its organizational dimensions, and the macro consequences of learning, in single policy domains or across countries and policies. We welcome papers on the inefficiency of learning, its power implications, and its implications for legitimacy and democracy. Its high time normative questions about learning were addressed openly and systematically. But we also warmly invite submissions from colleagues willing to open up their analytical vision to the cognitive and behavioral sciences, as well as sociology and other social sciences. We do not privilege any type of methods or approach, although we obviously care about sound methodology, transparency in reporting findings, and the quality of research design. The papers will be both empirical and conceptual, the important element being that they contribute to cross-fertilization and to the construction of policy learning theory. We will rely on the contributions to the workshop to submit a special issue proposal to a top-ranked journal in public policy research, such as the Journal of European Public Policy, the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, the Policy Studies Journal, or the Review of Policy Research. Our ability to do that will depend on the quality and coherence of the group of contributions. The choice of the journal will depend on the content of the contributions. Organization of the workshopTIMELINE · Day 1: o 1st ½ of morning: Keynote on policy learning by one of the chairs o 2nd ½ of morning + afternoon: Discussion of 5 papers · Day 2: o Discussion of 6 papers o Dinner · Day 3: o Discussion of 4 papers o General discussion on key guidelines in order to implement the publication project PAPER DISCUSSION AND SELECTION · Each participant will receive feedback from the chairs by email before the workshop · After fifteen minutes of presentation, each paper will be discussed by the other participants (one assigned discussant + audience) during one hour. · Each participant will receive a notification whether panel chairs want to select his or her paper for the publication project one week after the workshop. References Argote, L. (2013), Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, Springer US. Bennett, C. and Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25, 275-294. Challies, E., J. Newig, E. Kochskämper and N. Jager (2017). ‘Governance Change and Governance Learning in Europe: Stakeholder Participation in Environmental Policy Implementation’, Policy & Society, 36(2), 288-303. Common, R. (2004), ‘Organisational learning in a political environment’, Policy Studies, 25 (1), 35–49. Deutsch, K. W. (1963), The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control, Free Press. Dolowitz, D. P. and D. Marsh (2000), ‘Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making’, Governance, 13 (1), 5–23. Dunlop, C.A. (2017) ‘Epistemic communities and the irony of policy learning’, Policy and Society 36, 2: 215-232 Dunlop, C.A. (2017) ‘Pathologies of policy learning: what are they and how do they contribute to policy failure?’, Policy and Politics 45, 1: 19-3 Dunlop, C.A. (2017) ‘Policy learning and policy failure: definitions, dimensions and intersections’, Policy and Politics 45, 1: 3-18 Dunlop, C.A. and Radaelli, C. (2013). Systematising policy learning: From monolith to dimensions. Political Studies, 61, 599-619. Dunlop, C.A. and Radaelli, C.M (2017) ‘Learning in the bathtub’, Policy and Society 36, 2: 304-319 Dunlop, C.A. and Radaelli, C.M. (2016) Policy learning in the Eurozone crisis: modes, power and functionality. Policy Sciences, 49, 2: 107-124 Easterby-Smith, M. and M. A. Lyles (2011), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, John Wiley & Sons. Etheredge, L. S. and J. Short (1983), ‘Thinking About Government Learning’, Journal of Management Studies, 20 (1), 41–58. Fischer, M., K. Ingold, P. Sciarini and F. Varone (2016), ‘Dealing with Bad Guys: Actor- and Process-Level Determinants of the “Devil Shift” in Policymaking’, Journal of Public Policy, 36(2), 309-334. Friedmann, J. (1984), ‘Planning as social learning’, in D. Korten and R. Klauss (eds), People Centered Development: Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks, West Hartford, CO: Kumarisna Press. Gilardi, F. (2010), ‘Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?’, American Journal of Political Science, 54 (3), 650–66. Gilardi, F., K. Füglister and S. Luyet (2009), ‘Learning From Others: The Diffusion of Hospital Financing Reforms in OECD Countries’, Comparative Political Studies, 42 (4), 549–73. Gilson, C., P. Dunleavy and J. Tinkler (2009), Organizational Learning in Government Sector Organizations:Literature Review, Monograph, accessed 19 September 2017 at http://www.nao.org.uk/report/helping-government-learn/. Haas, P. M. (1992), ‘Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination’, International Organization, 46 (1), 1–35. Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process (pp. 55-56). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175-195. Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25, 275-296. Heclo, H. (1974). Modern social politics in Britain and Sweden: From relief to income maintenance. New Haven, CT / London: Yale University Press. Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 484-512. Henry, A., M. Lubell and M. McCoy (2011). ‘Belief Systems and Social Capital as Drivers of Policy Network Structure: The Case of California Regional Planning. Journal of Public Administration Research and theory, 21(3), 419-444. Hoberg, G. (1996). Putting ideas in their place: a response to "learning and change in the British Columbia forest policy sector". Canadian Journal of Political Science, 26(1), 135-144. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (1995). Do ideas matter? Policy network configurations and resistance to policy change in the Canadian forest sector. Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada, 38, 382-410. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., C. Nohrstedt, C. M. Weible and P. A. Sabatier (2014), ‘The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, Evolution, and Ongoing Research’, in P. A. Sabatier and C. M. Weible (eds), Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kübler, D. (2001). Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: an application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 623-641. Lachapelle, E., & Montpetit, E. (2015). Can policy actors learn from academic scientists? Implications for the Rehabilitation of Contaminated Sites. Environmental Politics, 24(5), 661-680. Leach, W. and P. Sabatier (2005), ‘To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking’, American Political Science Review, 99(4), 491-503. Leach, W., Weible, C., Vince, S., Sidikki, S., and Calanni, J. (2014). Fostering learning through collaboration: Knowledge acquisition and belief change in marine aquaculture partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 591-622. Lertzman, K., Rayner, J., & Wilson, J. (1996). Learning and change in the British Columbia forest sector: A consideration of Sabatier's advocacy coalition framework. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 111-133. Loeber, A. (2008). The learning concept in the policy sciences: not too elusive to be meaningful in practice. A comment on Biegelbauer. Concepts and Methods, 4, 11-15. Marsh, D. and J. C. Sharman (2009), ‘Policy diffusion and policy transfer’, Policy Studies, 30 (3), 269–88. Meseguer, C. (2004), ‘What Role for Learning? The Diffusion of Privatisation in OECD and Latin American Countries’, Journal of Public Policy, 24 (3), 299–325. Metcalfe, L. (1993), ‘Public management: From imitation to innovation’, in J. Kooiman (ed), Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions, London: SAGE. Moynihan, D. P. and N. Landuyt (2009), ‘How Do Public Organizations Learn? Bridging Cultural and Structural Perspectives’, Public Administration Review, 69 (6), 1097–105. Moyson, S. (2014). The individual in policy change: Policy learning in the liberalization of network industries in Belgium. PhD thesis, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Moyson, S. (2017). ‘Cognition and Policy Change: The Consistency of Policy Learning in the Advocacy Coalition Framework’, Policy & Society, 36(2), 320-344. Moyson, S. (2017). Policy learning over a decade or more and the role of interests therein: The European liberalization policy process of Belgian network industries Public Policy and Administration Moyson, S. and P. Scholten (2018), ‘Theories on policy learning: Existing approaches and future challenges’, in N. Dotti (ed), Knowledge, Policymaking and Learning for European Cities and Regions, New York, NY: Palgrave. Moyson, S., P. Scholten and C. Weible (2017), ‘Policy Learning and Policy Change: Theorizing their Relations from Different Perspectives’, Policy & Society, 36(2), 161-177. Nohrstedt, D. (2005). External shocks and policy change: Three Mile Island and Swedish nuclear energy policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 1041-1059. Parsons, D. W. (1995), Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis, Edward Elgar. Parsons, W. (2002). From muddling through to muddling up. Evidence based policy-making and the modernisation of British government. Public Policy and Administration, 17, 43-60. Rainey, H. G. (2014), Understanding and managing public organizations, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Riche, C., D. Aubin and S. Moyson (2017), ‘Learning in Networks : A Systematic Review of Public Administration Research’, Paper presented at the General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Oslo, Norway. Rose, R. (1991), ‘What is Lesson-Drawing?’, Journal of Public Policy, 11 (1), 3–30. Sabatier, P. A. and C. M. Weible (2014), Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sanderson, I. (2002). Making sense of ‘What works’: Evidence based policy making as instrumental rationality? Public Policy and Administration, 17, 61-75. Schon, D., & Rein, M. (1995). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books. Shipan, C. R. and C. Volden (2008), ‘The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion’, American Journal of Political Science, 52 (4), 840–57. Volden, C., M. M. Ting and D. P. Carpenter (2008), ‘A Formal Model of Learning and Policy Diffusion’, American Political Science Review, 102 (3), 319–32. Walker, J. L. (1974), The Diffusion of Knowledge and Policy Change: Toward a Theory of Agenda Setting, Institute of Public Policy Studies, University of Michigan. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Strategic retreat on objectives: Learning from failure in American public policy. In A. Wildavsky (Ed.), Speaking truth to power (pp. 484-496). Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Witting, A., & Moyson, S. (2015). Learning in post-recession framing contests: Changing UK road policy. In N. Schiffino, L. Taskin, J. Raone & C. Donis (Eds.), Organising after crisis: The challenge of learning. Brussels, Belgium: Peter Lang. Zito, A. R., & Schout, A. (2009). Learning theory reconsidered: EU integration theories and learning. Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 1103-1123.

Scientific presentation General Objectives The workshop aims to shed light on this linkage exploring the following working hypotheses: the array of institutional innovations carried on in Latinamerican countries in the 21st century has increased participation of traditionally excluded social actors and simultaneously has started to outline new varieties of democratic governance. What research question are participants expected to address? These can be theoretical research questions or methodological issues. The great transformation of post-neoliberal societies characterized by a much more globalized economy, rapid technological transformations and a predominant role of knowledge in social dynamics have increased the level of uncertainty and complexity in decision making and relocated the debate of innovation in public policies in the 21st Century. In this international context, in the last decades Latinamerican governments have introduced a variety of institutional innovations to face complex public problems in different policy fields. The workshop will address two research questions: · What is the incidence of institutional innovations on the empowerment of social actors that had been excluded from policymaking in the past? · In which degree have these institutional reforms started to shape new varieties of democratic governance? In which context does this topic take place? The proposal should present the context of the topic proposed and justify why, given the context, the question is relevant. As part of the most unequal region in the world, Latinamerican countries face multiple development problems that are usually described as complex, intractable, open-ended and ‘wicked’ (Rittel & Weber, 1973). To deal with complex public problems, in the last two decades Latinamerican governments have launched a series of institutional innovations in public policies that require in-depth examination to go beyond existing literature and understand whether these State interventions create public value and contribute to the genuine democratization of society and government. What is the scientific relevance of the question? The presentation should provide a brief state-of-the-art and identify specific contributions expected from workshop participants. A recent contribution of Peters and Pierre[1] analyzes the dimensions that configure current challenges to governance regarding complex issues. From their perspective, governments are dare to respond to public problems with increasingly high levels of ambiguity and complexity, while governors (government or non-government) experience a limited capacity to exercise authority through leverage or the crafting of consensus and contested political legitimacy (Peters & Pierre cited by Alexander et al., 2015). Different theories have addressed complexity, such as, complexity theory, systemic thinking and transdisciplinary research (Meadows 2008), transition socio-technological theories (Rip & Kemp 1996, 1998, Geels 2002, 2005, 2014), resilience and adaptive governance perspectives (Folke et al. 2004). These theories and approaches emphasize the importance of participation when many stakeholders (governmental, social and private sectors), with divergent interests and values, have to negotiate intricate, erratic and unpredictable issues. They provide conceptual guidelines to address constantly changing environments, ranging from experimentation and learning to adapt, to the exchange of knowledge practices between actors, the construction of relationships of trust to cope with complexity, uncertainty and continuous conflicts of interests. However, the linkage between institutional innovations in public policies, empowerment of social actors and democratic governance in Latin America has not been scientifically studied. Workshop participants will contribute to the comprehension of the theme with thorough analysis of the referred connection in the region. How will this workshop build on existing research? What hypotheses do the chairs seek to explore? What makes these hypotheses original and how will they further the available research on the key issue raised? Many recent approaches on complexity in public policy fail to include the political dimension. For instance, in environmental policy design processes in cities the ecosystem services approach fails to take existing administrative and governance structures and practices as a starting point[2]. In climate change the scientific community has used the adaptive approach. However, approaching the governance of adaptation mainly as a matter of proper technical analyses or “puzzling” over complex natural phenomena, is not enough for formulating authoritative policy alternatives[3]. Scholars in future studies[4] have extensively addressed the systemized ways of knowledge development but understanding the political implications of navigating futures in pluralist societies has received less attention. On the other hand, contemporary public policy and governance studies have long abandoned barriers of traditional thinking and instead treat decision-making processes as dynamically complex and consider erratic patterns of decision-making that does not necessarily result in appropriate responses or create policy driver[5] (Torfing, Sorensen, Piere and Peters, 2011). A central concern is the iterative processes of social construction, problem framing and the development of policy alternatives. Processes such as power struggles, misfortune, organized irresponsibility and social learning — as well as policy innovation and diffusion — are critical to policy outcomes[6] and also to research frameworks, if they aim to be robust. Considering existing research, we argue that social scientists’ epistemic community have to revisit the implications of recent Latinamerican institutional innovations in public politics and reflect carefully on how specific design may play out. In particular, the working hypotheses we seek to explore is the following: the array of institutional innovations carried on in Latinamerican countries in the 21st century has increased participation of traditionally excluded social actors and simultaneously has started to outline new varieties of democratic governance. What types of contributions would interest the panel chairs? The presentation must describe the kind of papers the chairs would like to receive: empirical, theoretical, methodological? In order to develop a stimulating workshop all papers should include: · A clear description of institutional innovations in Latinamerican public policies in the 21st century. · An analysis of the linkage between the described innovations, empowerment of social actors and democratic governance. Papers must be empirical and theoretically-grounded, with accurate information on the studied innovations and explicit presentation of the analytical categories. If the chairs have already identified possible participants, they should provide the titles of the paper proposals and the authors' references. At all events, this list of paper proposals must contain a maximum of 10 papers before it can be opened to other participants. Chairs María Ester Mancebo Universidad de la República, Uruguay memancebo@gmail.com Cristina Zurbriggen Universidad de la República, Uruguay criszurbriggen@gmail.com Participantes 1. María Ester Mancebo Universidad de la República, Uruguay memancebo@gmail.com Small-scale innovation versus systemic change in the educational arena. Uruguay 2005-2017 2. Cristina Zurbriggen Universidad de la República, Uruguay criszurbriggen@gmail.com Experimentation in policy design: challenges for public sector 3. José Miguel Busquets Universidad de la República, Uruguay busquets@chasque.ne Comparative analysis of two experiences of social dialogues in progressivism: institutional innovation and democratic governance. (2006-2016) 4. Oscar Oszlak Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad, Argentina oszlak@cedes.org> "Basic institutional innovations for Open States in Latin America" 5. André Noel Roth Universidad Nacional de Colombia anrothd@unal.edu.co Analysis of public policies: pragmatic, interpretative, network and public innovation perspectives 6. Conrado Ramos ramoslarraburu@gmail.com Universidad de la República Credit claimers: Un caso particular de Street level bureucracy 7. Marcela Schenck Universidad de la República, Uruguay marcela.schenck@gmail.com Comparative analysis of two experiences of social dialogues in progressivism: institutional innovation and democratic governance (2006-2016). 8. Eolo Diaz Tendero Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile eolodiaztendero@gmail.com The human rights in the modernization of the state: the case of access to information in Chile 9. Carlos Alza Barco Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú carlos.alza@pucp.edu.pe Innovación, policy tools y discursos en la supervisión d ela administración pública. El caso del Ombudsman en Perú y América Latina. [1] See Kooiman (2003) and Pierre and Peter (2005).[2]Frantzeskaki N, Tilie N. The Dynamics of Urban Ecosystem Governance in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Ambio. 2014;43(4). Hauck J, Gorg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamaki O, Jax K. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives.Environmental Science & Policy. 2013Primmer E, Furman E. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosystem Services.2012.[3] See Robbert Biesbroek1*, Johann Dupuis2, Andrew Jordan3, Adam Wellstead4, Michael Howlett5,6, Paul Cairney7, Jeremy Rayner8 and Debra Davidson (2015). Wellstead, A. M., Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. Ecol. Soc. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05685-180323 (2013). Biesbroek, G. R. Challenging Barriers in the Governance of Climate Change Adaptation (Wageningen Univ., 2014). Jordan, A. & Huitema, D. Environ. Polit. 23, (2014)[4] In futures studies has often applied examples are scenarios, interactive modeling, technology forecasting, sign-postsstudies, horizon scanning, and integral futures See (Armstrong, 2001; van Asselt, Mesman, & van’t Klooster, 2007; Schwartz, 1996; van der Heijden, 2005; Groves & Lempert, 2007; Godet, 2006; van der Duin, van Oirschot, Kotey, & Vreeling, 2009; Glenn & Gordon, 2006; Splint & vanWijck, 2012; Jouvenel,1967; Noordegraaf et al., 2014; van’t Klooster, 2008; Masini, 2006; Inayatullah, 2005).[5] Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J. & Sørensen, E. Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012). Stone, D. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (W. W. Norton & Company, 2011).[6] Wellstead, A. M., Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. Ecol. Soc. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05685-180323 (2013). Biesbroek, G. R. Challenging Barriers in the Governance of Climate Change Adaptation (Wageningen Univ., 2014). Jordan, A. & Huitema, D. Environ. Polit. 23, 7 (2014).

SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION Governance modes, Policy Styles and policy mixes Public policy studies offer different typologies of governance modes and policy styles, each of which tries to theoretically order the ways in which public policies are coordinated and steered (see for all: Considine and Lewis 1999; Treib, Bahr and Falkner 2007; Howlett 2011; Capano 2011; Tollefson, Zito, and Gale 2012). All of these classifications share not only their adoption of the three fundamental, albeit differently arranged, principles of social coordination (hierarchy, market and network), but also the tendency to associate specific policy strategies - including equivalent sets of policy instruments - with each of the designed governance modes in a long-lasting or relatively long-lasting policy styles. This refers to the basic theoretical problem whereby people select policy strategies and instruments which are congruent with a governance mode and do so in a more or less predictable way, leading to a characteristic style or manner of formulating and implementing policy. Any selection of policy instruments is characterized by an intrinsic policy-mix trend (Howlett 2004; Bressers and O’Toole 2005), and as such should be considered the result of a miscellany of different ideas, interests and technologies, and deemed institutionalized in certain specific, recurrent contingences. In keeping with the literature, in this essay we adopt a general definition of policy mix, that is, a policy strategy using a combination of policy instruments belonging to “different” instrument categories or pertaining to different policy paradigms/beliefs systems/ideologies (Ring and Schloeter-Schlack 2012; Howlett and Del Rio 2013). Some mixes are thought to be better than others, but why this should be the case is unclear. For example, all studies of the “good governance” promoted by the OECD and by other international organizations, tend to focus on the best mix of policy instruments adopted in pursuit of certain specific policy goals (OECD 2007, 2010) but provide few indications why the tools chosen constitute such an optimal arrangement.And how these mixes arise and why certain long-term patterns of choices appear to be made is also unclear. It is often argued that the best way to really grasp what a governance mode is and how it works is to focus on the set of policy instruments through which they directly affect and address the policy-making process. For example, from this point of view, for example, it is quite normal to associate authority and law with hierarchical governance modes, or regulation with market modes, or information with network modes with mixes in such regimes favouring tools of these types. However, as certain studies of policy instruments show, the idea of any coherence between policy instruments and a given ideational framework or goal, has been superseded (Gunningham and Sinclair 1999; Bressers and O'Toole 2004; Howlett 2005;; XXX) for the simple reason that it is empirically fallacious and inconsistent with the facts. This is very often justified as an outcome of the ambiguous preferences of policy-makers. That is, we know perfectly well that: - governance modes and policy styles are conceptual categories or ideal types which are difficult to pinpoint in practice and policy makers very often have clear goals (based on their electoral mandate), but are unclear ideas about which instruments to adopt to pursue those goals; - meaning very often instruments choices are not in keeping with the purported governance mode present at a specific moment; resulting in a mix which may be path dependent; while instruments are not static or predetermined, but tend to be dynamic, with a life of their own supported by constituencies of inventors and promoters, making them difficult to change This raises the issue of theory vs practice in instrument studies and brings into sharper focus the question of what exactly is the role of governance modes and policy styles in instrument design, which is the subject of this workshop. Background: What are policy mixes? Policy design and implementation are mainly constituted by policy mixes. As we all know, the concept of policy mix originated in the economic literature during the 1960s, and was largely restricted to the field of economics and innovation studies until the early 1990s (Flanagan, Uyarra and Laranja 2011). It has since been adopted in other policy fields such as childcare policy (Gunningham and Young 1997; Stroick and Jenson 1999), research and technology policy (Smith 1994), environmental policy (Sorrel and Sijm 2003), environmental economics (Braathen, 2007; Lehmann 2010), and innovation policy (de Heide 2011; Borràs and Edquist 2013). As far as concerns the types of policy instrument adopted, scholars generally group policy instruments according to their underlying rationale. Usually there are no more than three or four possible general types of policy instrument, as clearly exemplified by the most relevant classification proposed in public policy (Hood 1983, Vedung 1998) According to our logic, each family of policy instruments contains all those instruments characterized by a similar relationship with the given policy goals. From this point of view then, a policy mix exists when instruments belonging to different types/families of policy instrument are assembled in order to pursue specific policy goals. Policy mixes have become a more general topic in public policy research in recent years, and empirical research has clearly shown that the majority of policy strategies are composed of complex layered policy mixes rather than single or simple tool choices (Howlett 2005; Braun 2006; Howlett and Reyner 2007; Capano, Rayner, Zito). Specialist studies offer different definitions of policy mix, some of which are extremely sophisticated (Del Rio and Howlett 2013). Briefly speaking we assume that a policy mix is a policy strategy using a combination of policy instruments belonging to “different” instrument categories or pertaining to different policy paradigms/beliefs systems/ideologies. From a policy perspective, the question of such mixes is double-sided. On the one hand, scholars interested in policy design have to understand how the best policy mixes are to be formulated, and thus they are interested in understanding the kinds of interactions possible among different policy instruments – congruent, contradictory, supplemental, spillover controlling, sequencing and the like (Del Rio and Howlett 2013). Thus once it has been accepted that the policy-making norm consists in the pursuit of multiple policy goals through specific combinations of a variety of instruments, and very often within a multi-level institutional context, the theoretical challenge is to understand the potential combinations and effects of instruments in such environments in order to provide instruction to policy-makers. On the other hand, for those more interested in explaining how and why certain policy mixes are designed, implemented and changed, the research question is a radically different one. In this case, scholars need to identify frameworks capable of describing, understanding and explaining the “political” and “policy” dynamics of policy mixes as they emerge and change over time. What we find particularly interesting are the reasons why certain mixes represent the policy-making norm, and why policy-makers continually choose their instruments in a mixed way. Policy instruments are very often linked to a specific policy paradigm or set of abstract policy goals pursued by governments and other actors. In this sense policy instrument preferences are very often ideological. This means that we expect to find coherence between the policy instruments adopted and the prevailing/hegemonic policy values/principles within a specific policy field. However, very often this does not happen, and we may find substantial incongruence and incoherence between policy instruments and policy principles. Similarly, as described above, it is often argued that instrument choices flow from governance modes and policy styles. How these aspects of choices inter-relate with paradigms and if they lead to incoherence in policy mixes is another outstanding research question which will be addressed in this workshop. The Open Questions Raising attention to policy mixes needs to be better ordered both from atheoretical and an empirical point of view. From the theoretical point of view we need: 1. to better understand how the concept of governance arrangement/mode can be operationalized in term of set of policy instruments and whether the intrinsic mixed nature of those sets could make a substantially useful contribution to the better understanindg of the the concept of a governance mode itself. 2. to better conceptualize the link between policy mixes and policy effectiveness and whether and how the most commonly adopted criteria of assessment - like consistency, coherence, credibility or comprehensiveness (Foxon and Pearson, 2008; Howlettand Rayner, 2007; Kern and Howlett, 2009; Majone, 1997; Matthes,2010) - can be theoretically strengthened and operationalized. 3. to better theorize about policy mix classifications in order to simplify and thus better order the study of the complexity of the real world of policy instrumentation From an empirical point of view we need: 1. to better describe the policy mixes present in different policy fields 2. to better understand the diachronic evolution of such policy mixes to understand how and why they have evolved in the specific ways they have. 3. To conduct comparative analysis to see whether, how, and why the same general families of policy instruments and the same general policy principles may lead to the adoption of different types of policy mixes in the same policy fields in different circumstances. 4. To conduct evaluative analyses capable of showing under which conditions it is possible to design (more) effective policy mixes, and 5. To conduct more focused empirical research into understanding the role of ideas, actors and institution in influencing the diachronic evolution of policy mixes

Presentation Context and relevance of the research question This workshop will convey scholars applying different methods in policy analysis, around the following question: Which are the most reliable methods and techniques to improve comparative policy analysis? For many years, methodology remained a black box in policy research. In spite of their valuable contribution to theory building and testing, even the most popular analytical frameworks often lacked transparency regarding the protocols being used. Thus by jumping directly from theoretical discussion to empirical analysis, scholars often missed a good opportunity to evaluate and discuss the potentials and limits of their methods, in particular regarding case selection and data recollection. Yet, today the “conscious thinker” (Sartori, 1970) in Comparative Policy Analysis (hereafter CPA) is expected to open this black box in order to facilitate further discussion, back-up and eventually increase the external validity of his or her theory. The first basic questions interesting CPA were raised in pathbreaking works by Lijphart (1971) and Przeworski and Teune (1970) in comparative politics. During the 1980s and 1990s, the history, sociology and economics of the welfare state made significant contributions to CPA (see Heidenheimer, 1985; Rose and Shiratori, 1984; Esping-Andersen, 1990; Castles, 1998). CPA is increasingly influenced by studies on multilevel governance, even though international relations have always been logically interested in comparison (see Pierre and Peters, 2000; Geddes, 2003; George and Bennett, 2005). Meanwhile qualitative methods improved considerably in the wake of King, Keohane and Verba´s thundering call for more transparency in qualitative research design (See King et al., 1994; Ragin, 2008; Collier, Brady and Seawright, 2010; Peters, 2013; Gerring, 2007; Goertz and Mahoney, 2012). Yet after four decades of cross-fertilization, CPA still lacks a common language and common protocols that would produce substantial cumulative knowledge for decision-making and theory building or testing (Dodds, 2013; Schmitt, 2013; Engeli and Rothmayr Allison, 2014). It also needs improvement to bridge the two traditional bodies of literature produced by basic research and policy analysis. Hypotheses and further research The increasing importance of comparison in policy analysis responds first and foremost to the transnational flows of ideas, people, goods and services caused by globalization, even though it also attends the growing demand for accountability by non-state actors, especially after the post-materialist revolution and the blossoming of social networks worldwide. For its “benchmarking role” (Dodds, 2013), CPA allows for a better understanding of different political traditions by focusing on their institutional dimensions or collective action. It encompasses many dimensions of the political system, to explain policy success or failure, policy change or continuity, policy diffusion and convergence, etc. It can refer to national, subnational or regional levels to explain the decision-making process and the role played by institutions, actors, and context. We consider CPA as an emerging field for scholars willing to explain policy outputs and outcomes. From a substantive perspective, this field benefits from the inputs of political science, sociology, economy, history and administration studies. From a methodological perspective its development started in the aftermath of comparative politics during the 1970´s, starting with statistics techniques for large-N studies, standard regression models and experiments, proceeding with the multiplication of small-N and intermediate-N studies since the 1980´s, which were complemented by combinatory analysis in the 1990-2000´s and process tracing in the 2010´s. The central hypothesis of the workshop is that comparative public policy is facing the challenge of conceptual and analytical harmonization, if it ought to make a significant contribution to the explanation of policy design and bridge applied and fundamental policy studies, which have been following separate ways so far. Therefore methods are a central issue and should line up with scholars´ scientific ontology in their research design (Jackson, 2016). References Castles Francis (2011). “Has Three Decades of Comparative Public Policy Scholarship Been Focusing on the Wrong Question?”. TranState Working Papers, 155, 41 p. Collier, D., Brady, H., and Seawright, J. (2010), “Critiques, responses, and trade-offs: Drawing together the debate”. In Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, edited by H. Brady and D. Collier, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 135-160. Dodds Anneliese (2013), Comparative public policy. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 390 p. Engeli Isabelle, Christine Rothmayr Allison (2014), “Conceptual and methodological challenges in comparative public policy”. In: Isabelle Engeli, Christine Rothmayr Allison (Ed.), Comparative policy studies: Conceptual and methodological challenges. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 1-13. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Oxford: Polity Press. Geddes Barbara (2003), Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 314 p. George Alexander, Andrew Bennett (2005), Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press, 331 p. Goertz Gary, James Mahoney (2012), A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 238 p. Heidenheimer Arnold (1986), “Comparative Public Policy Studies Examined: an Odyssey in Four Parts”. International Social Sciences Journal, 108: 159-177. Jackson Patrick T. (2016), The conduct of inquiry in international relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. (2nd edition). London: Routledge. King Gary, Robert Keohane, Sidney Verba (1994), Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 247 p. Lijphart Ahrend (1971), “Comparative politics and the comparative method”. The American Political Science Review, 65 (3): 682-693. Peters B. Guy (2013), Strategies for Comparative Research in Political Science. London: Palgrave McMillan, 284 p. Pierre Jon, Guy B. Peters (2000), Governance, Politics and the State. London: Macmillan Press. Przeworski Adam, Teune Adam (1970), The logic of comparative social inquiry. Malabar: Kriegeri, 153 p. Ragin Charles (2008), Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 225 p. Rose Richard (1984), Comparative Policy Analysis: the Programme Approach. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Sartori, G. (1970). “Concept Mis-formation in Comparative Politics”. The American Political Science Review, 64(4): 1033-1053. Schmitt Sophie (2013), “Comparative approaches to the study of public policy-making”. In: Araral Eduardo, Scott Frizen, Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh, Xun Wu (Ed.) (2013), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. London, New York: Routledge, 29-43. Specific contributions expected The workshop will integrate methodological issues in comparative politics and comparative sociology with those used in policy analysis. We believe that, if the promise of CPA is to be fulfilled, then greater attention must be given to ways of linking comparative methods with policy, and likewise how to link methods associated with policy analysis to comparative cases. Too often these connections of research traditions are not made clearly and the resulting research may not contribute as much as it might, either to comparative studies or policy studies. We will held five sessions. The first session will address contemporary trends in comparative policy analysis. Contributions will deal with methodological issues in policy research on agenda-setting, implementation, public administration, and the use of common analytical frameworks for CPA. The second session will focus on the linkage of issues in comparative analysis. Contributors will discuss the utility of the comparative method, most-similar and most-different systems research designs, small-n case studies, large-n comparison and comparative process tracing, etc. The third session will address further issues in qualitative methods. Contributors will deal with combinatory analysis (QCA) for CPA, comparative historical research, Q methodology, focus groups, ethnography and biases problems in data collection, etc. The fourth session will address standard quantitative techniques. Contributors will deal with measurement issues such as regression for policy work, big data and models of policy change. The fifth session will address multi-methods and experimental research designs. Contributors will examine the role of experimental designs –both laboratory and field experiments– , mixed methods for intermediate-n comparison, social network modeling, risk-benefit evaluation, etc. Dynamic of sessions Each session will involve the presentation of several papers and extensive discussions of those papers. Many of the papers were presented as first drafts at ICPP3 in Singapore and we therefore expect these papers to be of high quality. Final outcome, publication As well as the intellectual developments we expect from this panel, we intend to use the papers as a major component of a Handbook for Methodology for Comparative Policy Analysis.

Policy capacity is one of the most fundamental concept in public policy but it remains under-theorized and under-operationalized. It is one of those terms in policy studies that everyone wants more of but no one really knows what it is. Notwithstanding recognition of its importance more than a quarter century ago (Honadle, 1981) and many fine works over the years (Fukuyama 2013, Painter and Pierre 2004), the concept continues to be defined either too broadly or too narrowly. Recent works on policy capacity (Wu, et al. 2017, Wu, et al. 2015) have advanced the usefulness of the concept by defining policy capacity as a set of resources and competences necessary for performing policy functions: analytical, operational and political. As a nested model of capacity, this conceptualization also views capacity at different level: individual, organizational and systemic. While this definition has inspired integration of various works done on administrative, state and public sector capacity, crucial elements remain unexplored. There is a need to identify and promote new direction for research on policy capacity, for which this workshop seeks to address. First, how is this current definition of policy capacity conceptually similar to other notions of capacity? Capacity is typically viewed as an easily observable phenomenon – we know it when we see it – but the conceptual heterogeneity limits our ability to make theoretically grounded predictions and prescriptions. Second, what are the methods most appropriate for studying policy capacity? Current approaches have largely been single, descriptive case studies which constrain our ability to generalize the findings towards advancing a general theory of policy capacity. Third, at which level should capacity be examined? The focus at each level can largely be attributed to disciplinary bias of sociologists and political sciences at the macro level and public administration scholars’ focus on organizational and individual levels. These studies have been largely isolated from each other, ignoring the questions of transferability of results to each level. Fourth, what are the factors that contribute towards shaping policy capacity? The implication of this question is profound given the practitioners’ interest in capacity building which is not matched by the theorization on the subject. Fifth, does higher policy capacity necessarily lead to be better policy outcomes? Scholarly works linking policy capacity with government effectiveness remain scant and the methodological constraints limit drawing causal inferences.

This workshop addresses four related research questions: 1. Why did different governments around the world enacted reforms to integrate and coordinate public policies and administrative units from different policy sectors? 2. What are the mechanisms that explain cross-country and cross-sector differences in reform patterns? 3. What are the relations between the policy and the administrative dimensions of public sector reforms? 4. In which contexts are these reforms considered successful in dealing with the policy challenges they are addressing and when is this not the case? These research questions are relevant for the following reasons. Since the early 1980s, researchers have pointed at the delegation of competencies away from the central government to subnational governments (Hooghe et al. 2016; Hooghe and Marks 2016), private organizations and independent regulators (Maggetti 2007; Gilardi 2008), as well as international organizations (Hooghe et al. 2017). In the public administration literature, scholars have observed that these processes of delegation went along with New Public Management (NPM) reforms, implying the disaggregation of public sector structures, contractualisation, and more reliance on private actors to deliver public services (Hood 1991). At the same time, other scholars in the public administration literature have pointed out that NPM reforms came along with a strengthening of the central state and national bureaucracies. Precisely, this literature has referred to the steering state (Peters 2001), steering from the centre (Dahlström et al. 2011), the self-care of the state (Bezes 2009), and coordination inside the public sector (Bouckaert et al. 2010) to denote the reinforced power of the bureaucracy. Other authors have observed a turn towards integration and coordination of different policy instruments and related administrative units during the same period. Therein, scholars have referred to analytical terms, such as joined-up government (6 2004), policy integration (Briassoulis 2004), whole-of-government (Christensen and Laegreid 2007), or functional regulatory spaces (Varone et al. 2013) to emphasize a type of reform that coordinated or integrated elements from a variety of policy sectors. These literatures overlap to some extent (Tosun and Lang 2017) and focus on a similar core issue, namely on how states have reorganized different policy fields and on the relationships between these fields in the context of a changing nature of the state as well as with respect to the emergence of new policy challenges, such as environmental concerns, new public health challenges, or migration crises. This workshop aims at bringing together the policy-oriented side and the public administration side of this research tradition. Against this background, we invite papers that move this literature forward in making contributions such as the following: i.) comparative analyses of reforms that integrate and coordinate policies and/or administrative units across different countries and/or policy fields; ii.) papers that conceptualize and examine the conditions or mechanisms that explain such reforms across sectors and countries; iii.) comparative analyses that analyze failed or successful reforms of policy integration and coordination in dealing with the policy challenge at hand. In principle, papers can have a theoretical or an empirical focus but preferences will be given to papers that use original comparative empirical material. The overarching goal of the workshop is to better connect research on the policy and on the administrative dimension of coordination, one to another, and, respectively, both to the wider governance literature. Previous researchers have pointed out factors that constrain integration and coordination of policy sectors (Peters 2015; Vince 2015; Candel 2017). For example, limited capacities and resources, insufficient political commitment, blame avoidance, and turf wars between governmental sectors or levels constrain the coordination and integration of policy sectors. On the other hand, other conditions tend to enable policy integration, such as the presence of institutional structures that connect governmental sectors and levels, the presence of a shared policy frame, and sustained political leadership (Peters 2015; Trein 2017). The relative importance of these factors as well as how they can be fostered remains an open question, however. The contributions to be invited to this workshop should use or build on these explanatory factors to derive hypotheses or speculate about the mechanisms that can be applied in comparative analyses and provide either theoretical or practical lessons (or both) that explain why policy integration and coordination reforms vary across countries and policy sectors as well as why some of these reforms succeed in dealing with the problems they try to address while others failed. The workshop will consist of sessions in which the authors present their papers, with a special attention to their approach, the results and the general contribution of the paper. Each paper will be discussed by a discussant and then with the audience. We will ask participants to serve as discussants of other participants’ contributions. The goal of the workshop is to publish a special issue in an international peer-reviewed journal that contributes to political science, public policy and public administration literature. Confirmed participants and preliminary paper titles: 1. Biesbroek, Robbert (robbert.biesbroek@wur.nl). Tracking national-level policy integration of climate change adaptation across the globe. 2. Christensen, Tom (tom.christensen@stv.uio.no) and Per Lagreid (Per.Lagreid@uib.no). Coordination Quality in Central Government – The Case of Norway. 3. Hustedt, Thurid (Thurid.Hustedt@fu-berlin.de). Comparing changing coordination: The cases of digitalization and refugee policies in German federal government 4. Meyer, Iris (iris.meyer@unil.ch). Mechanisms of policy (dis)integration in French and German housing policy. 5. Michel, Cynthia L. (cynthia.michel@cide.edu) and Guillermo M. Cejudo (guillermo.cejudo@cide.edu). Policy integration in Latin America: Responses to fragmentation in social policy. 6. Peters, B. Guy (bgpeters@). Program Elements: Linking Policy Design and Policy Integration 7. Tosun, Jale (jale.tosun@ipw.uni-heidelberg.de). Ministerial structure and horizontal policy integration in energy governance. 8. Trein, Philipp (josefphilipp.trein@unil.ch), Martino Maggetti (martino.maggetti@unil.ch). Reconfiguration of the central state: a comparative empirical analysis. 9. Fischer, Manuel (Manuel.Fischer@eawag.ch), Martino Maggetti (martino.maggetti@unil.ch) and Philipp Trein (josefphilipp.trein@unil.ch). How to analyze boundary shifts of policy sectors? Research design and methods for the analysis of policy integration and coordination Very likely to participate (but paper not yet confirmed finally) Koen Verhoest (koen.verhoest@uantwerpen.be) References: 6, Perri. 2004. "Joined-Up Government in the Western World in Comparative Perspective: A Preliminary Literature Review and Exploration." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 (1):103-38. Bezes, Philippe. 2009. Réinventer l'État: les réformes de l'administration française (1962-2008). Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Bouckaert, Geert, B. Guy Peters, and Koen Verhoest. 2010. The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations: Shifting Coalitions of Public Management. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Briassoulis, Helen. 2004. "Policy Integration for Complex Policy Problems: What, Why and How." In Greening of Policies: Interlinkages and Policy Integration. Berlin. Candel, Jeroen JL. 2017. "Holy Grail or inflated expectations? The success and failure of integrated policy strategies." Policy Studies:1-34. Christensen, Tom, and Per Laegreid. 2007. "The Whole-of-Government Approach to Public Sector Reform." Public Administration Review 67 (6):1059-66. Dahlström, Carl, B Guy Peters, and Jon Pierre. 2011. Steering from the Centre: Strengthening Political Control in Western Democracies: University of Toronto Press. Gilardi, Fabrizio. 2008. Delegation in the Regulatory State: Independent Regulatory Agencies in Western Europe. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Hood, Christopher. 1991. "A Public Management for all Seasons?" Public Administration 69 (1):3-19. Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2016. "Community, Scale, and Regional Governance: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance, Vol. II." Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hooghe, Liesbet, Gary Marks, Besir Ceka, and Tobias Lenz. 2017. Measuring International Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hooghe, Liesbet, Gary Marks, Arjan H. Schakel, Sandra Chapman-Osterkatz, Sara Niedzwiecki, and Sarah Shair-Rosenfield. 2016. Measuring Regional Authority. Volume I: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maggetti, Martino. 2007. "De Facto Independence after Delegation: A Fuzzy-set Analysis." Regulation & Governance 1 (4):271-94. Peters, B Guy. 2001. The Future of Governing. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Peters, B. Guy. 2015. Pursuing Horizontal Management: The Politics of Public Sector Coordination. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Tosun, Jale, and Achim Lang. 2017. "Policy Integration: Mapping the Different Concepts." Policy Studies forthcoming. Trein, Philipp. 2017. "Coevolution of Policy Sectors: A Comparative Analysis of Healthcare and Public Health." Public Administration 95 (3):744-58. Varone, Frédéric, Stéphane Nahrath, David Aubin, and Jean-David Gerber. 2013. "Functional Regulatory Spaces." Policy Sciences 46 (4):311-33. Vince, Joanna. 2015. "Integrated Policy Approaches and Policy Failure: The Case of Australia’s Oceans Policy." Policy Sciences 48 (2):159-80.

Towards an urban policy analysis: Linking urban politics and public policy We propose to study urban policies and processes by linking public policy theories with urban politics literature. Public policy scholars analyze local policies often without reference to theoretical frameworks developed by urban politics scholars; likewise, urban politics research often examines urban policies, but without reference to public policy theories (Sapotichne, Jones, and Wolfe 2007). We propose to bridge this gap to explore what makes the “urban” dimension of urban policy distinctive, and how such an understanding can, in turn, deepen knowledge and theorizing of public policy more generally. Our workshop will include several panels organized thematically with ample time for discussion and critique. The conveners’ goal is to produce an edited volume or a special issue of a journal that would focus on urban policy analysis, along the lines sketched out below. Workshop papers will ideally represent a range of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives, with the common thread of urban policy, and the common goal of seeking to theorize and empirically analyze urban policy through bringing different sets of literature into dialogue. We seek contributions that approach urban policy within and across cities, as well as those that approach urban policy beyond the city, at a global scale. Bringing “the urban” into policy analysis Whether responding to climate change, migration, or addiction, whether aiming to generate growth or reduce the negative impacts of growing inequality, cities are often posited as policy innovators. Yet they also are characterized as adapting to, and complying with, the needs and interests of global capital, in the process slighting the well-being of everyday residents and especially the most vulnerable. Cities clearly are active policy makers and policy implementers, whether progressive, innovative, neoliberal or regressive. Yet a specifically “urban” policy analysis seems as yet to emerge. As Clarence Stone reminds us, “cities are not the nation state writ small” (2015, 117). Thus, urban policies differ from policies formulated nationally, subnationally, or in suburban or rural areas. We wonder how policy process, policy designs, policy implementation differ when undertaken by urban decision makers and advocates, as opposed to those at the national or supranational levels; whether contextual differences in institutions, actors, or ideas generate a distinctive type of policy at the urban scale. And we propose that comparative analysis, within and across nation-states and world regions, may be among the keys to answering these questions. Wolman (2012, 145) defines urban policies as policies generated and implemented by city governments through local political processes (i.e. not federal or national policy towards cities). However, since urban policies are often at the forefront of tackling complex societal problems, we may think of urban policies as well as traveling beyond city boundaries, to other levels of government and to other regions of the world. There are several interrelated reasons that make the study of urban policies distinctive and particularly relevant. First, societal problems accentuate themselves in densely populated spaces. Cities are spatially concentrated expressions of societies that “reflect the social and economic conditions of the moment and are arenas where socioeconomic transformations, developments, and problems first become manifest” (Kübler and Wälti 2001, 35). Thus, urban policies tackle relevant societal problems on the ground. Various examples have shown the high relevance and sometimes trailblazing impact of urban policies that were later copied by other cities and other levels of government. For example, Swiss cities in the early 1990s were at the forefront of designing strategies to cope with their open drug markets. Swiss cities implemented harm-reduction strategies by helping to pioneer heroin maintenance treatments and by providing clean syringes and needles (Kübler 2001; Kübler and Wälti 2001). A more recent example is the effort of U.S. cities to curb greenhouse gas emissions in light of few tangible efforts on the national level (Hughes 2017). In Germany, cities are important actors in designing proactive refugee and integration policies after Germany took responsibility for over 1 million refugees in 2015 (Mayer 2017). U.S. cities on the West Coast have enacted living-wage ordinances due to campaigns of low-wage worker organizations (Milkman, Bloom, and Narro 2010). Second, and relatedly, policies addressing urban problems that find no majorities on the national and/or sub-national level (i.e. state, province etc.) may be nevertheless pushed forward by cities. Again, the prime example is environmental policies and climate protection efforts of U.S. cities. As Hughes (2017, 365) explains: “In the face of policy stagnation at the international and, in the case of the United States, national levels, many city governments have been developing plans of their own”. Under the auspice of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, cities pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the spirit of the Kyoto protocol that the U.S. never ratified (Sapotichne and Jones 2012, 442–44). Further examples are the so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with national immigration enforcement agencies and forbid city officials from inquiring into an individual’s immigration status (Gonzalez, Collingwood, and El-Khatib 2017). Irregular migrants tend to live in cities given that urban settings facilitate job opportunities and the possibilities to tap into social networks. Therefore, cities haven an interest in protecting immigrants who are directly affected by the negative consequences of harsh national immigration policies that marginalize irregular immigrants. Third, structural economic pressures down-scale policies to the local level. For example, economic development policies are down-scaled to regional or local levels. Cities are forced to be geographical spearheads for economic growth (Brenner 2000, 2004). As a consequence, cities have been pressured to become entrepreneurial and they respond by formulating neo-liberal urban policies (Harvey 1989). Thus, many cities develop a variety of locational policies to strengthen their competitiveness in global interurban competition (Kaufmann and Arnold 2017). However emerging literature on shrinking cities and slow cities proposes alternatives to pursuit of large-scale growth (e.g., H. Mayer and Knox 2006; Joo and Hoon Park 2017). Finally, urban policy features global and conceptual dimensions that broaden “the urban” and thus must not be restricted or localized to one city. With what some scholars have called “planetary urbanization” occurring (e.g. Brenner and Schmid 2015), globalization and the transnational flows of knowledge enable the travel of policy ideas, so that leaders in Porto Alegre, Brazil, or Mexico City can assist mayors in Chicago or New York (Peck and Theodore 2015). Simultaneously, local opposition movements are connected with each other and informed by each other; claims of “rights to the city” are made locally but also in concert with movements worldwide (Purcell 2014; Huchzermeyer 2017). Global connections, however, do not mean necessarily that cities across North and South can be studied in the same way, or have the same relevant dimensions for policy analysis (Roy 2009). How can urban policy analysis be attentive to global power relations at the level of knowledge-production? As well, conceptualizations of urbanism derived from geographic space and human experience of that space, refer as much to frames of mind or perspectives on power and social order/disorder, ways of life, ways of interaction that distinctively incorporate diversity, complexity, chaos, flexibility, ongoing change – even ungovernability that perhaps defies policy analysis as conventionally construed (Simone 2004; Magnusson 2010). Cities are relevant for the policies and policymaking that occur within them (thereby affecting the majority of the world’s population who live in cities) but also because the urban transcends “the local.” Linking urban politics and public policy Although urban politics and public policy are separate subfields in many professional associations, with their own sections and journals and conferences, these fields share common interests and orientations to research that could lead to more explicit dialogue. Both subfields share an awareness of complexity and a related openness to interdisciplinarity. The problems that policy seeks to address, and the urban environments that scholars seek to understand, emerge from complex webs of factors that often can only be understood through multidisciplinary inquiry. Key journals in both of these subfields not surprisingly feature work by scholars across the social sciences. As well, at least within political science, these subfields share some intellectual origins in the ideas of Bachrach and Baratz (1962). The community power debate in the 1950s and 1960s was an important intellectual dispute over the nature and organization of power in democracies. Floyd Hunter (1953) advocated an elitism theory by demonstrating the dominance of senior business leaders in Atlanta’s politics. Robert Dahl (1961) offered a pluralistic picture of urban politics in New Haven. Bachrach and Baratz (1962, 1963) objected that the concept of power remained incomplete if power in the agenda-setting process, and especially if non-decision-making, was not considered. This work became critical to public policy theories on agenda setting, which continue to be a major area of research within the subfield of public policy – thus joining together the study of cities with the study of public policy. Despite the commonalities of the two subfields, there are today hardly any ties between urban politics and public policy theories (Sapotichne, Jones, and Wolfe 2007). The ideas of Bachrach and Baratz (1962, 1963) about power in the policy-making process have resonated with policy scholars (see for example Hacker 2004; Knill and Tosun 2012, 110; Pierson 2004, 37, 2015; Weible 2017, 8). However, these ideas left not many traces in the urban politics literature. Urban politics within political science mainly focused on political economy approaches such as growth machines (Molotch 1976; Logan, John; Molotch 1987) and urban regimes (Stone 1989, 1993). Another strand of urban politics research studied urban policies in so-called domains (Peterson 1981). The environment of the policy domain must be therefore considered to explain the policy process. As a consequence, the policy processes have to be strictly contextualized. Public policy theories, on the other hand, may not automatically apply to cities, because they are mostly built from analyzing national policy-making (Sapotichne and Jones 2012, 444). Some noteworthy exceptions have studied urban policies by adopting public policy theories or concepts (e.g. Rast 2009, 2012; Sapotichne and Smith 2012; Sidney 2003). To be sure, policies are an important object of urban studies, however, we do not detect many conscious efforts that would link empirical work in cities to public policy theories or concepts. As Trounstine (2009, 613) noted, “we lack a comprehensive body of theoretically driven research that explains variation in policy outcomes (…) at the local level”. References Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S Baratz. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56 (4):947–952. ———. 1963. “Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework.” American Political Science Review 57 (3):632–642. Brenner, Neil. 2000. “Building ”Euro-Regions” Locational Politics and the Political Geography of Neoliberalism in Post-Unification Germany.” European Urban and Regional Studies 7 (4):319–345. ———. 2004. New State Space: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brenner, Neil, and Christian Schmid. 2015. “Towards a New Epistemology of the Urban?” City 19 (2–3):151–182. Dahl, Robert Alan. 1961. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven. Fung, Archon. 2015. “Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen Participation and Its Future.” Public Administration Review 75 (4):513–522. Gonzalez, Benjamin, Loren Collingwood, and Stephen Omar El-Khatib. 2017. “The Politics of Refuge: Sanctuary Cities, Crime, and Undocumented Immigration.” Urban Affairs Review. Hacker, Jacob 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. Harvey, David. 1989. “From Managerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance in Late Capitalism.” Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Human Geography, 3–17. Hooghe, and Gary Marks. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97 (2):233–243. Huchzermeyer, Marie. 2017. “The Legal Meaning of Lefebvre's the Right to the City: Addressing the Gap between Global Campaign and Scholarly Debate.” GeoJournal, 1–14. Hughes, Sara. 2017. “The Politics of Urban Climate Change Policy: Toward a Research Agenda.” Urban Affairs Review 53 (2):362–380. Hunter, Floyd. 1953. Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Joo, Yu-Min, and Se Hoon Park. 2017. “Overcoming Urban Growth Coalition: The Case of Culture-Led Urban Revitalization in Busan, South Korea.” Urban Affairs Review 53 (5):843–867. Kaufmann, David, and Tobias Arnold. 2017. “Strategies of Cities in Globalised Interurban Competition: The Locational Policies Framework.” Urban Studies. Knill, Christoph, and Jale Tosun. 2012. Public Policy: A New Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. Kübler, Daniel. 2001. “Understanding Policy Change with the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Application to Swiss Drug Policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 8 (4):623–641. Kübler, Daniel, and Sonja Wälti. 2001. “Drug Policy-Making in Metropolitan Areas: Urban Conflicts and Governance.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (1):35–54. Logan, John; Molotch, Harvey. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. London, University of California Press. Magnusson, Warren. 2010. “Seeing Like a City: How to Urbanize Political Science.” In Critical Urban Studies: New Directions, edited by Jonathan Davies and David Imbroscio, 41–53. SUNY Press. Mayer, Heike, and Paul Knox. 2006. “Slow Cities: Sustainable Places in a Fast World.” Journal of Urban Affairs 28 (4):321–34. Mayer, Margit. 2017. “Cities as Sites of Refuge and Resistance.” European Urban and Regional Studies. Milkman, Ruth, Joshua Bloom, and Victor Narro. 2010. Working for Jusfice: The LA Model of Organizing and Advocacy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Molotch, Harvey. 1976. “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.” American Journal of Sociology, 309–332. Peck, Jamie, and Nik Theodore. 2015. Fast Policy: Experimental Statecraft at the Thresholds of Neoliberalism. University of Minnesota Press. Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre. 2004. “Multi-Level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain?” In Multi-Level Governance, edited by Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders, 75–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peterson, Paul. 1981. City Limits. University of Chicago Press. Pierre, Jon. 2017. “Multilevel Governance as a Strategy to Build Capacity in Cities: Evidence from Sweden.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 1–14. Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press. ———. 2015. “Power and Path Dependence.” In Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, 123–147. Cambridge University Press. Purcell, Mark. 2014. “Possible Worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the Right to the City.” Journal of Urban Affairs 36 (1):141–154. Rast, Joel. 2009. “Critical Junctures, Long-Term Processes: Urban Redevelopment in Chicago and Milwaukee, 1945–1980.” Social Science History 33 (4):393–426. ———. 2012. “Why History (Still) Matters: Time and Temporality in Urban Political Analysis.” Urban Affairs Review 48 (1):3–36. Roy, Ananya. 2009. “The 21st-Century Metropolis: New Geographies of Theory.” Regional Studies 43 (6):819–830. Sapotichne, Joshua, and Bryan D Jones. 2012. “Setting City Agendas: Power and Policy Change.” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics, edited by Karen Mossberger, Susan E Clarke, and Peter John, 442–467. Oxford University Press. Sapotichne, Joshua, Bryan D Jones, and Michelle Wolfe. 2007. “Is Urban Politics a Black Hole? Analyzing the Boundary between Political Science and Urban Politics.” Urban Affairs Review 43 (1):76–106. Sapotichne, Joshua, and James M Smith. 2012. “Venue Shopping and the Politics of Urban Development: Lessons from Chicago and Seattle.” Urban Affairs Review 48 (1):86–110. Sidney, Mara. 2003. Unfair Housing: How National Policy Shapes Community Action. University Press of Kansas. ———. 2010. “Critical Perspectives on the City: Constructivist, Interpretive Analysis of Urban Politics.” In Critical Urban Studies: New Directions, edited by Jonathan Davies and David Imbroscio, 23–40. SUNY Press. Simone, AbdouMaliq. 2004. “People as Infrastructure: Intersecting Fragments in Johannesburg.” Public Culture 16 (3):407–429. Stone, Clarence. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. University Press of Kansas Lawrence, KS. ———. 1993. “Urban Regimes and the Capacity to Govern: A Political Economy Approach.” Journal of Urban Affairs 15 (1):1–28. ———. 2015. “Reflections on Regime Politics: From Governing Coalition to Urban Political Order.” Urban Affairs Review 51 (1):101–137. Stone, Clarence N, Jeffrey R Henig, Bryan D Jones, and Carol Pierannunzi. 2001. Building Civic Capacity: The Politics of Reforming Urban Schools. University Press of Kansas. Trounstine, Jessica. 2009. “All Politics Is Local: The Reemergence of the Study of City Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 7 (3):611–618. Weible, Christopher M. 2017. “Introduction: The Scope and Focus of Policy Process Research and Theory.” In Theories of the Policy Process (Fourth Edition), edited by Christopher M Weible and Paul A Sabatier, 1–16. New York: Westview Press. Wolman, Harold. 2012. “What Cities Do: How Much Does Urban Policy Matter?” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics, edited by Karen Mossberger, Susan E Clarke, and Peter John, 415–441. Oxford University Press.

The general objective of the workshop is to review, synthesizes, and evaluate models and methods that have been used to conceptualize and investigate wicked problems, with a view towards their solution. The term wicked problems has been chosen because the bulk of extant literature employs this term rather than nearly coterminous concepts of ill-defined (Reitman), ill-structured (Simon), and squishy(Strauch) problems. Pursuing this objective at the present time is important because of the growing and soon-to-be unmanageably huge literature on these problems. For example, C. West Churchman’s two-page article on wicked problems, where the term was first used, was published in 1967. Since that time some 938 books and articles have been published with either “wicked problem” or “wicked problems” in the title. These terms have been used in published literature some 216,000 times. The well-known articles by Horst Rittel in Policy Sciences and the follow-up article by Rittel and Webber in the same year have been cited 11,628 times. For comparison, consider citations to Simon’s 1955 article (“A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice”), which is the critique of economic rationality for which he got the Nobel. This article was cited 10,114 times between 1967 (12 years after it was published) and 2017. This comparison attests to the successful diffusion of the “wicked problem” concept. For another comparison, Lindblom’s “The Science of Muddling Through”(1959) was cited about the same number of times (12,137) between 1959 and 2017 period. The wicked problem concept was born out of a concern with the unmanageable complexity of contemporary society, particularly urban areas such as Los Angeles in which unanticipated widespread riots occurred in 1965. However, the wider context in which the concept originated was one of the inadequacy of responses to complexity by planners, policy analysts, and operations researchers. This is among the reasons why Churchman advocated that professionals acknowledge to their clients in government and business that they could not assume professional responsibility for the solution of wicked problems and, for this reason, they should not be held morally responsible. Indeed, if we return to the original Churchman, Rittel, and Weber formulation, it is clear that wicked problems cannot be solved.

The general focus of the workshop is on the role of emotions as an agent of policy change. More specifically, it will explore the function of emotional intensity in the construction and transformation of public problems and their treatment by public authorities. While the question of the role of emotions is rather abundant when it comes to studying political behavior, little research can be found in the policy literature. Nonetheless, there is yet new literature that seeks to shed light on the policy process through emotional inputs. This is known as the “affective turn” present in several social science disciplines such as geography (Anderson and Smith, 2001; Bondi, Davidson and Smith, 2005), political science (Brader, 2011; Marcus, 2002) or sociology of collective action (Aminzade and McAdam, 2001; Latté, 2015; Groenendyk, 2011). Generally speaking, this affective turn is an opportunity to break away from approaches that regard public policy as goal-oriented and fundamentally evidence-based. Emotions may include anger, indignation, sadness, fear, but also joy or pride (Coleman and Wu, 2010). Mercer proposes the following definition: “An emotional belief is one where emotion constitutes and strengthens a belief and which makes possible a generalization about an actor that involves certainty beyond evidence. The experience of emotion is not a mere product of cognition or a reaction to a belief. It is not an afterthought. Feelings influence what one wants, what one believes, and what one does” (2010:2). In this workshop, we suggest, following Jones (2003) Coleman and Wu (2010) and Mercer (2010), to put emotions back at the heart of rationality and not to evacuate it. The workshop theme is guided by a general research question, that is, how do emotions participate in the construction and transformation of territorial public problems? Through the contributors’ work, we intend to explore how citizens’ emotional reactions to specific events transform certain public issues into public problems at the territorial scale as the latter is a relevant, accessible and relatively unexplored laboratory for observation and analysis. Indeed, very few studies focus their analysis on the emotional dimensions that shape local public policies, whereas this would make it possible to identify, as Douillet, Négrier, and Faure (2015:328) cited, the mechanisms that structure the narration of metropolitan policy issues. Public policy analysis’s theoretical corpus is abundant. Marked by parallel development in North America and Europe, it has traditionally revolved around three main families of approaches, known as the 3 I’s (Palier and Surel, 2005). Theories are thus categorized by the importance they place on either ideas (Sabatier and Schlager, 2000), interests (Rhodes, 2006) and institutions (Hall and Taylor, 1996). Each of these I’s is, in fact, an umbrella that embraces a diversity of theories and concepts and later works have led to the inclusion of both instruments (Lascoumes and LeGalès, 2004; Hood 2007) and discursive analysis (Schmidt, 2011; Zittoun and Demongeot, 2009). Through this workshop, however, we propose to explore another body of work, also known as the affective turn. The importance of this literature lies in its claim to be able to contribute to the renewal of policy analysis. Within that literature, Faure and Négrier (2017) recently developed a new analytical triad to capture the link between emotions and politics. Following the three I’s model, they identified three E’s articulated around the State (État), Power spaces (Espaces de pouvoir) and Eros. As an analytical starting point, this workshop will focus on the second “E” which is both fuelled by constructivist approaches in which the elites instrumentalize emotions to establish their authority, and by the governmentalisation of the world, the Foucaldian approach (Foucault, 2004). In addition to the theoretical foundations for studying the determinants of public policy, their analysis is traditionally based on a sequential breakdown of the process. Public problems, agenda-setting, formulation, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation are all sequences that follow one another in a rational vision of the State’s action. While the rationality of this sequencing has been widely discussed and critiqued, this breakdown nevertheless offers a simplification of reality, when coupled with other analytical tools (such as the 3 I's) (Muller and Surel, 1998). In this vein, it is not the whole policy process that will the center of attention in this workshop, but rather the manufacturing of policy problems. From the constructivist perspective we adopt, problems do not exist outside the problematization process that guides their definition. On the contrary, they are derived from the subjective perspectives of individuals. Problematization is generally seen as a process that revolves around three mechanisms: framing, justification, and promotion. Within this triad, emotions are particularly called upon when framing the problem. Framing refers to how issues attract attention, which in turn depends on how problems are presented and connected to values, beliefs or emotions that can touch people. Framing is therefore the product of interpretations and of reconstructions of information (Fischer, 2003). Jones and Baumgartner (1991) describe framing as a “public policy image”, which brings together empirical information, ideas, values and emotional appeal. As such, framing offers a shared understanding of the problem and underlying emotions, which then allow some actors to grasp it. To that effect, several studies have already demonstrated the way in which, for example, from a memorable event, a double shift operates: from emotion to awareness and from awareness to politicization (Dassié, 2017; Fabre, 2013; Latté, 2015). Although the role of emotions in the policy process is not a new phenomenon, it is usually considered as variable among others in the construction of public problems. This dimension is particularly reflected in the studies done on the role of the media in agenda setting (Coleman and Wu, 2010; Miller, 2007). More recent work argues, however, that emotions can be taken seriously in order to give them a more central place in understanding problem construction and, by extension, policy change. That is what we propose to do in this workshop. The workshop has three objectives: 1) exploring how the emotional dimensions of the public policy process fit into current theoretical discussions in political science and public administration; 2) generating knowledge on the emotional construction of public problems with an important territorial dimension. This will fill gaps in urban and regional public policy literature, while at the same time creating more explicit links between public policy analysis and urban and regional studies; 3) working toward submitting a special issue for publication in Policy and Society. Papers submitted are expected to explore the contribution of emotional input in the construction and transformation of public problems through case studies or theoretical reflections on existing approaches to public problems. For example, contributors may want to tackle if emotions have to be opposed to rationality, as some work on negative emotions do (e.g. see Maor, 2016 about negative emotions and negative policy bubbles). Since the affective turn is a relatively recent approach, papers focusing on methodological considerations linked to the study of emotions in public policy are also welcome. Contributors interested in methodological issues may, for example, question how emotions can be captured in public policy; what types of data collection and analysis could be used to grasp this important dimension around public problems’ construction of; or, if and how research should rely on other disciplines’—such as psychology—research methods. Although open to other levels of analysis, the workshop will also prioritize contributions at the territorial scale. Indeed, very few studies focus their analysis on the emotional dimensions that shape local and regional public policies, whereas this would make it possible to better understand the narration of local and regional policy issues. The territorial angle will make it possible to delineate an otherwise very broad topic. This workshop will provide an opportunity to engage both public policy analysis and urban and territorial studies to document the inescapable link between public problems, emotions, and territory. It is meant to be a place for international and multisectoral exchanges. Papers accepted for this workshop are expected to be sent at least three weeks before the event. This workshop will be organized around three or four sessions of a maximum of 5 individual presentations, each lasting 20 to 25 minutes. Two discussants and a rapporteur will be assigned to each session. The conclusions, comments, and propositions for future research collected by the rapporteurs will be shared in a final wrap-up session in addition to a discussion devoted to the planning of a special issue to be submitted for publication. References Aminzade, R. et D. McAdam (2001). « Emotions and contentious politics», in Aminzade, Ron et al. dir. Silence and Voice in contentious politics. Cambridge University Press. Anderson, K. et S. J. Smith (2001). Editorial: Emotional geographies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26 (1), 7-10. Bondi, L., Davidson, J. et Smith, M. (2005). Emotional Geographies. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing. Brader, T. (2011). “The Political Relevance of Emotions: “Reassessing” Revisited”, Political Psychology, 32 (2), 337-346. Coleman, R., & Wu, H. D. (2010). Proposing Emotion as a Dimension of Affective Agenda Setting: Separating Affect into Two Components and Comparing Their Second-Level Effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(2), 315–327. Dassié, V. (2017), « Une émotion patrimoniale au service d’un engagement consensuel », in Faure, A. et E. Négrier dir. La politique à l'épreuve des émotions. Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 31-41. Douillet, A.-C., E. Négrier et A. Faure (2015). « Trois regards sur les politiques publiques vues du local ». in Boussaguet, L., S. Jacquot et P. Ravinet dir. Une « French touch » dans l'analyse des politiques publiques ?, Sciences Po Les Presses, 319-348. Fabre, D. (2013). Émotions patrimoniales, Paris, Éditions de la MSH, collection Ethnologie de la France, cahier 27. Faure, A. et E. Négrier dir. (2017). La politique à l'épreuve des émotions. Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices, Osford, Oxford University Press. Foucault, M. (2004). Sécurité, territoire, population : cours au Collège de France, 1977-1978. Paris, Gallimard. Groenendyk, E. (2011). « Current Emotion Research in Political Science: How Emotions Help Democracy Overcome its Collective Action Problem », Emotion Review, 3 (4), 455-463. Hall, P., Taylor, R. (1996) “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms”, Political Studies, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 936-957. Hood, C., (2007). « Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeover: reflexions on the tool of government after two decades », Governance, 20 (1), 127-144. Jones, B. et F. Baumgartner (1991), « Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems », Journal of Politics, 53 (4), 1044-1074. Lascoumes, P. et Le Galès, P., dir. (2004). Gouverner par les instruments, Paris, Les presses de Sciences Po. Latté, S. (2105). « Des “mouvements émotionnels” à la mobilisation des émotions », Terrains/Théories, vol. 2 Émotions. URL : http://teth.revues.org/244 ; DOI : 10.4000/teth.244 Maor, M. (2012). Policy overreaction. Journal of Public Policy, 32(3), 231–259. Marcus, G. (2002), The sentimental citizen: Emotion in democratic politics, Philadelphia, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press. Mercer, J. (2010). Emotional Beliefs. International Organization, 64, 1–31. Miller, J. M. (2007). Examining the Mediators of Agenda Setting: A New Experimental Paradigm Reveals the Role of Emotions. Political Psychology, 28(6), 689–717. Muller, P. et Surel, Y. (1998). Analyse des politiques publiques, Paris, Montchrétien. Palier, B., Surel, Y. (2005). « Les “trois I” et l’analyse de l’État en action », Revue française de science politique, 55 (1), 7-32. Rhodes, R.A.W. (2006). “Policy Network Analysis”, in Moran, M., Rein, M., Goodin, R.E., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, 425-447. Sabatier, P. et Schlager, E. (2000). « Les approches cognitives des politiques publiques : perspectives américaines », Revue française de science politique, 50 (2), 209-234. Schmidt, V. A. (2011). “Speaking of change: why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation”, Critical Policy Studies 5 (2),106-126. Zittoun, P., Demongeot, B. (2009). « Debates in French Policy Studies: From cognitive to discursive Approaches», Critical Policy Studies, 3 (3–4): 391–406.

Representative bureaucracy raises questions about the link between the composition of the public sector workforce and administrative performance. More fundamentally, the proposed workshop topic brings society back into the comparative study of public administration. As issues of ethnicity, multi-culturalism, gender or social equity have become increasingly salient to political discourses, representative bureaucracy also has become more significant to the study of the public sector. The workshop builds on specific strands of research and publications and is designed to foster integration of those different bodies of work so as to provide a fuller framework within which to explore the contemporary policy problems, solutions and settings of representative bureaucracy. This proposed workshop is meant to address the core questions of the research agenda in representative bureaucracy. It builds on the well-established research community within public administration, and attempts to raise a number of new questions for research. In particular, the comparative emphasis in the proposed workshop also emphasizes the multiple interpretations of this concept, and the importance of understanding context when attempting to understand representative bureaucracy. The workshop topic is deeply rooted in and departs from the classic concern with the capacity of public bureaucracies to serve as representative institutions. This concern can be traced back to Kingsley (1944) who claimed that “bureaucracies, to be democratic, must be representative of the groups they serve” (1994: 305). While Kingsley’s focused on the middle- and upper-class bias of the British higher civil service, attention has since then shifted so as to include gender-based issues, questions of sexual orientation, cleavages between religious groups, linguistic communities, and particularly racial and ethnic minority groups (see for the underpinnings of representative bureaucracy Mosher 1968, Krislov 1974, Meier 1975; see also for overviews van der Meer 1996, Dolan and Rosenbloom 2003, Groeneveld and van der Walle 2010). Central to this debate has been the distinction between ‘passive (or sociological)’ representation and ‘active (or responsible) representativeness (Mosher 1968). It flows from this that subsequent research has sought to explore the relationship between the two dimensions and to establish the factors and conditions that lead administrators to adopt a minority representative role (Selden, Brudney and Kellough 1998). The link between representativeness and administrative performance has attracted much scholarly attention (see Selden and Selden 2001). The impact of minority representation has been shown, for example, with regard to better education and minority school teachers (Meier and Stewart 1992, Meier 1993, Pitts 2005), racial minorities in the police force (Meier and Hawes 2008), better protection against employment discrimination (Hindera 1993), more child support (Wilkins and Keiser 2006), more effective handling of rape crimes (Meier and Nicholson-Crotty 2006) and general satisfaction with local government services (Bradbury and Kellough 2008). The rich body of literature on ‘diversity management’ has also contributed to the understanding of representative bureaucracy in that it emphasizes the consequences for internal human resource management, the effectiveness of diverse teams, the attractiveness of employers with diverse workforces or the effects of ‘diversity’ on the level of job satisfaction (see Cox and Blake 1991, Ely 2004). Additional impetus for researching the effect of representativeness on administrative output has been provided by the performance-related public management literature in the wake of the ‘new public management’ movement. This strand of the literature is, for example, represented in the work of Andrews et al. 2005. The established strands of the literature, however, also help to identify the deficiencies and blind spots of the scholarly discourse on representative bureaucracy: (1) Much of the empirical work comes out of the US-American political science and public administration communities, while country cases and organizational examples from other regions of the world are still significantly under-researched and genuinely comparative studies tend to be rare; (2) the available literature highlights service-oriented organizations, yet it still does not reflect the full range of policy fields, functions and types of organizations in the public sector; (3) the individual strands of the literature – coming from public management, public policy analysis, diversity management or comparative politics – appear to be unduly separated from each other. Types of papers required The workshop is designed to enrich our empirical knowledge of how ‘representative bureaucracy’ works in different in contexts and to advance our theoretical understanding of the political and organizational dynamics of ‘representative bureaucracy’. In doing so, we are interested in theoretical and empirical papers that present findings on how representativeness in public sector organizations relates to administrative performance, analyze the institutional arrangements in which representative bureaucracies operate, and discuss the changing political, societal and cultural contexts of diversity and representativeness in the public sector. Contributions that pursue a genuinely comparative perspective – across countries, over time, across levels of government, comparing policy fields and types of public organizations – will be particularly welcome. Empirical papers that apply their data to theoretical models designed to illuminate and dissect the multi-faceted drivers and effects of representative bureaucracy are particularly encouraged. While the focus of the workshop is on empirical analyses, there is also scope for papers that address relevant conceptual or methodological issues. Likely participants and follow-up plans The proposed workshop can already build upon an established network of interested and engaged scholars who have collaborated with the proposers in research projects, participated in organized panels on ‘representative bureaucracy’ at international scholarly conferences (such as APSA, IPSA, MPSA and most recently IPPA 2017) or contributed chapters to recently edited volumes on representative bureaucracy involving the proposers (von Maravic, Peters, Schröter 2013 and Peters, von Maravic, Schröter 2015). It goes without saying that the current network of interested academics is open to new members and is meant to be extended in preparation for the IPPA International Workshop on Public Policy. The workshop is geared to get additional scholars interested in the theoretical and empirical study of ‘representative bureaucracy’ with an eye to attracting younger researchers in particular. The proposed workshop will have sessions on theoretical and methodological considerations of the study of representative bureaucracy as well as empirical sessions focusing on the impact of national and/or organizational context. The proposers are planning to organize a follow-up workshop in 2019 and develop the papers into an edited volume. References Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Meier, Kenneth J., O’Toole, J. and Walker, R. M. (2005). Representative Bureaucracy, Organizational Strategy, and Public Service Performance: An Empirical Analysis of English Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 15 (4), 489-504. Bradbury, M. D. and Kellough, J. E. (2008). Representative Bureaucracy: Exploring the Potential for Active Representation in Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 18 (4), 697-714. Dolan, J., and Rosenbloom, D. H. (eds) (2003). Representative Bureaucracy - Classic Readings and Continuing Controversies, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 (6), 755-780. Groeneveld, S. and van der Walle, S. (2010). A Contingency Approach to Representative Bureaucracy: Power, Equal Opportunities and Diversity. International Review of Administrative Science, 76 (2), 239-258. Hindera, J. J. (1993). Representative Bureaucracy: Further Evidence of Active Representation in the EEOC District Offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3 (4), 415-429. Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative Bureaucracy. An interpretation of the British Civil Service. Yellow Springs Ohio: The Antioch Press. Krislov, S. (1974). Representative Bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc. Meier K. J. and Hawes D. P. (2008). Ethnic conflict in France. A case for representative bureaucracy? American Review of Public Administration,39 (3), 269-285. Meier, K. J. (1975). Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis. The American Political Science Review 69 (2), 526-542. Meier, K. J. and Stewart, Jr., J. (1992). Active representation in educational bureaucracies: Policy impacts. American Review of Public Administration, 22 (2), 157-171. Meier, K. J. and Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66 (6), 850-860. Mosher, F. C. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press. Peters, B. G., von Maravic, and Schröter, E. (eds) (2015), The Politics of Representative Bureaucracy: Power, Legitimacy, Performance, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. Pitts, D. W. (2005). Diversity, Representation, and Performance: Evidence about Race and Ethnicity in Public Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (4), 615-631. Selden, S. C. and Selden, F. (2001). Rethinking Diversity in Public Organizations for the 21st Century. Administration & Society 33 (2), 303-329. Selden, S. C., Brudney J. L, and Kellough, J. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a Representative Institution: Toward Reconciliation of Bureaucratic Government and Democratic Theory, American Journal of Political Science, 42 (3), 719-44 van der Meer, F. M., and Roborgh, R. L. J. (1996). Civil Servants and Representativeness. Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective, 119-136. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wilkins, V. M., and Keiser, L. R. (2004). Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender: The Case of Child Support Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1), 87-102. von Maravić, P., Peters, B. G. and Schröter, E. (eds.) (2013). Representative Bureaucracy in Action: Country Profiles from the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

The papers in this workshop examine an array of collaboration mechanisms available to coordinate the actions of local governments to mitigate local and regional dilemmas of fragmented authority that characterize a federalist system and even unitary systems. In metropolitan regions authority to address public problems can be fragmented vertically among levels of government, horizontally among local governments, or functionally among agencies and bureaus. Fragmented authority produces institutional collective action dilemmas when lack on integration results in spillovers or loss of scale economies. This workshop brings together research to understand these dilemmas and the collaborative mechanisms to mitigate them. Informal types of agreements impose fewer restrictions on participants because they are flexible, voluntary, and do not require local governments to give up autonomy but they are unlikely to be sustained if participants face “collaboration risks” of not being able to coordinate on a course of action, not being able to agree to division of costs, or not being able to prevent others from reneging or free riding following agreement. One focus is on how regional governance systems and intergovernmental collaboration relationships shape policy instrument selection and how political factors affect the initial choice of policy tools also shape the life cycle of these policies from design to implementation, continuation, modification, or termination (Peters, 2002). The research presented will capture the political dynamics of policy instruments throughout their life cycle from the design and adoption of specific policy instruments, and interactions among multiple instruments in implementation. Potential Papers: From Plans to Effective Policy Outcomes: The Effect of Administrative Form and Stability on the Success of Cities’ Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Efforts Rachel Krause, University of KansasAngela Park, University of Kansas Policy Tool Choices and Policy Contexts in Environmental Policy? M.J. Moon, Yonsei UniversityB.J. Cho, Yonsei University “Governmental Capacity and Regional Collaboration”Jessica Terman, George Mason University Network Analysis of Interlocal Economic Development Collaboration in Rural Metropolitan Areas Chang-Gyu Kwak, Sam Houston State University Sungwook Kwon, Texas Tech University When Do Local Governments Collaborate for Economic Development? Evidence from Joint Infrastructure Development Projects in Metropolitan Areas Brian An, University of Southern CaliforniaRichard C. Feiock, Florida State UniversityRaphael Bostic, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Advocacy Coalitions in Shale Gas Development in ChinaYuan Liu, George Washington UniversityHongtao Yi, The Ohio State UniversityTanya Heikkila, University of Colorado DenverChristopher Weible, University of Colorado Denver Institutions, Regional Governance, and Land-Use Changes: A Comparative Study of Metropolitan Areas in the US and Europe.Aaron Deslatte, Northern Illinois UniversityKatarzyna Szmigiel-Rawska, University of WarsawIzabela Karsznia, University of WarsawAntónio F. Tavares, University of Minho Policy Learning and Resource Dependency: Regional Sustainability Governance Aaron Deslatte, Northern Illinois University Technological Innovation, Alternative Energy Production and Energy ConservationTaekyoung Lim, Cleveland State UniversityTian Tang, Florida State University Planning and Managing Sustainability Initiatives: How and Why do Cities Codify their Commitments? Christopher Hawkins, University of Central Florida Climate Change Policy, Residential Insurance Programs, and Natural Disasters in South Korea. Hyunwoo Lim, University of North TexasJisun Ryu, University of North TexasSimon A. Andrew, University of North Texas Vaswati Chatterjee, University of North Texas Inter-City Competition and Local Government Debts in China: A Spatial Econometric Analysis Shaoming Cheng, Florida International UniversityHai Guo, Florida International University Urbanization, Development of Science and Technology, and Chinese ExceptionalismJill Tao, Incheon National University Functional Fragmentation and Local Water Governance in ChinaHongtao Yi, The Ohio State University High-Power and Low-Powered Incentives and Public Service Motivation: A Survey Experiment Namhoon KI, Askew School, Florida State University Interrelational Embeddedness and Collaboration Risk in Emergency Management: An Institutional Collective Action AnalysisMinsun Song, University of Nevada Las VegasKyujin Jung, Kore Univeristy Measurement Validity in Urban Sustainability: Advances in Spatial Models of Public Policy ChoicesSwann Will Swann, School of Public Affairs, Colorado Denver Policy Instrument Bundling of Local Land Use Sustainability ToolsAnthony Kassekert, U. S. Homeland Security & Florida State University Changing Water Resource Management Paradigms in an Authoritarian Environment Edgar Ramirez, CIDE, Mexico

The Public Service Evaluation Unit of the Catalyst Project on Improving Community Services for Vulnerable People at the University of Essex seeks to co-host a workshop on Emergency Management, Disaster, and Policy during the upcoming Biennial Meeting of the International Public Policy Association in Pittsburgh, PA, on 26-28 June 2018. This proposed workshop builds on a series of panels on the public policy of risks, hazards, and disasters assembled for the 2018 Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. Objectives: Far more than a contextual sidelight, the study of risks, hazards, and disasters has played an important role in advancing extant policy theory. Many of the most prominent theories of policy change underscore the capacity of disasters, focusing events, and other “exogenous shocks” to capture policy maker attention and induce policy change.[1] Research on the relationship between disasters and policymaking has been instrumental in not only advancing academic knowledge on the policy process, but also informing practitioner understanding of the ways in which social institutions organize and operate under conditions of extreme stress and uncertainty.[2] The existence of a thriving community of scholars working at the intersection of disasters and public policy prompted the Policy Studies Organization (PSO) to launch a new journal dedicated to the study of disaster and public policy in 2010, Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy. Now in its eighth edition, RHCPP pays testament to this thriving sub-stream of research. Moreover, disaster scholars continue to disseminate their research in leading policy and administration journals.[3] This workshop is designed to bring together the community of scholars working on disasters and public policy, and to develop submissions for up to four (4) journal special issues on disaster and emergency management policy and evaluation. It builds on a series of panels organized as a conference-within-in-a-conference (CWC) for the 2018 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association. The CWC has been designed to bring together more than 30 scholars from North America and around the world. The three-day discussion focuses on preliminary work that features cutting edge research on disasters and public policy. The strongest papers from this will be invited to participate in the proposed IPAA workshop. In addition, a call will be circulated to provide anyone who could not attend the SPSA meeting with a second opportunity to present their work. We seek to expand on hazards governance and capitalize on growing scholarly attention to disasters, first responders, emergency management, and policy. We aim to showcase outstanding scholarship on emergency management, disasters, and policy, providing a venue for scholars to present their research, strengthen their network, and shape future hazards and disaster policy research across the social sciences via theoretically informed, methodologically rigorous empirical work. We hope this and subsequent conferences will motivate scholars of emergency management, hazards, and disaster policy to more fully engage the policy field by sharing theoretical insights and data and methods innovations that they have developed in the study of disasters. Papers developed successfully as a result of the workshop will be invited to participate in special issues of relevant internationally ranked journals. Depending on demand, participation, and topical range, 1-4 special issues will be proposed, organized, and workshopped. We envision the following themes: Disaster Policy in Comparative Perspective - Field experiments testing disaster policy effectiveness in the international or comparative context; - Disaster policies for preparedness, resilience, planning, and outcomes; - Disaster mitigation and management policies across contexts; - Social capital, networks, civil society organizations, and their influence on disaster resilience and policy outcomes across place and time. Big Data, Methods, and Evaluation of Emergency/Disaster Policy - Process evaluation and outcome/impact evaluation for first response units, disaster management, and relief agencies; - Outcome/impact evaluation of disaster/emergency management planning processes and plans; - The use of algorithms, machine learning, and big data to evaluate performance and impact of disaster policy. Policy Process, Climate Change, and Public Understanding of Hazards - Electoral outcomes, public opinion, and political behavior as a result of disasters, media coverage, and emergency events; - Public perceptions of climate change, risk, and policy imperatives; Policy Process Theories and Risk - The dynamics of policy change in public risk and disaster domains; - The role of focusing event, indicators, and other problem measures in drawing policymaker attention to public risks; - Policy entrepreneurship and disaster policymaking. We expect this workshop to have a mix of sessions. Some will be panel presentations of 4-6 papers per session, with a Chair and two Discussants per panel. Others will be in-depth sessions focusing on no more than 3 papers each, devoting more time to the discussion of each paper. Together these panels will help scholars at various stages of paper development. Graduate students and early-career scholars will be invited to attend and give comments (even if they do not have papers to present), so as to enrich the discussion and strengthen the community of up-and-coming disaster policy scholars. [1] Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd Ed. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers; Sabatier, P.A. and Weible, C. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In P. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 189-122). Boulder, CO: Westview, Press; Baumgartner, F.R., and Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [2] May, P. (1991). Assessing public risks: federal earthquake policy design. Journal of policy analysis and management, 10(2): 263-285; Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington: Georgetown University Press; Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of disaster: policy change after catastrophic events. Washington: Georgetown University Press; May, P.J. and Koski, K. (2013). Addressing public risks: Extreme events and critical infrastructures. Review of Policy Research, 30(2), 139-159; Nohrstedt, D. (2008). The politics of crisis policymaking: Chernobyl and Swedish nuclear energy policy. Policy Studies Journal, 36, 257-278.[3] See, for example: Albright, E.A. (2011). Policy change and learning in response to extreme flood events in Hungary: an advocacy coalition approach. The policy studies journal, 39(3), 485-511; Avery, G. (2004). Bioterrorism, fear, and public health reform: Matching a policy solution to the wrong window. Public administration review, 64(3), 275-288; May, P.J., Jochim, A.E., and Sapotichne, J. (2011) Constructing homeland security: An anemic policy regime. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(2), 285-307; Nohrstedt, D. (2009). Do advocacy coalitions matter? Crisis and change in Swedish nuclear energy policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 309-333.

Workshop title: Promoting participation in health services and evaluation What research question are participants expected to address? These can be theoretical research questions or methodological issues.The development of more inclusive approaches to participation has been driven by changes in normative expectations around the level and quality of public scrutiny in governance (Keane, 2009). This naturally includes an increased focus on consultation and public reporting. However, there is also an increased expectation that non-governmental organisations, advocacy organisations and community will directly participate in governance (Kickbusch & Gleicher, 2011). For example, health democracy (democratie sanitaire) was recognised in France in 2002 with the passing of laws to ensure user engagement in healthcare management, patient protection and to ensure the provision of quality health care. The notion of involving community in decision-making is long-standing, where its links to self-determination are critical for establishing the legitimacy of decisions. The key research question explored in this panel is the extent to which community members and consumers are being utilised in public health and social policy-making and the impacts this has on the groups affected by the policy. As such, we seek papers from a theoretical perspective around questions of power-sharing, deliberative democracy and governance. From a methodological and evaluative perspective, tools and frameworks currently being employed to include community members and consumers are also invited. The aim of the panel is to bring together both researchers and policy makers involved in community and consumer participation to look at the benefits and challenges of various approaches to consultation, engagement, governance and greater social inclusion and power sharing, and to explore how this translates to accountability, legitimacy, trust and equity. In which context does this topic take place? The proposal should present the context of the topic proposed and justify why, given the context, the question is relevant.This is an important area in health and social policy making given the growing impetus to include community members and consumers in all aspects of health and social policy making. Despite the greater inclusion of community members and consumers, the extent to which power disparities and are mitigated in policy-making processes and deep inclusion takes place, is rarely thought about, let alone evaluated. Deep inclusion consists of not only who is present for a decision-making process but also how they are involved. Achieving deep inclusion via participation in policy processes therefore requires involving not only a range of relevant stakeholders but also promoting qualitative equality, which means ensuring that individuals have a fair or equal chance to influence the priority-setting process and have their voices heard. This panel seeks to marry both theoretical and empirical approaches that evaluate the benefits and challenges of various approaches to participation and question whether meaningful participation takes place for community members and consumers. What is the scientific relevance of the question? The presentation should provide a brief state-of-the-art and identify specific contributions expected from workshop participants.There is growing evidence that providing increased voice to vulnerable or disenfranchised populations is important to improving health equity at a number of different levels (Beckfield & Krieger, 2009). A systematic review of the literature on the influence of political context on health equity at a national level found that the only factor consistently associated with improvements in health equity was the political incorporation of formerly subordinated groups—an association was found in 6 out of 7 studies (Beckfield & Krieger, 2009). Within countries, a meshing of top-down and bottom-up approaches to policy development has been viewed as a key mechanism to make policy and institutions more inclusive of citizens and more responsive to their needs (World Health Organisation, 1998). It would be good if a volume of papers could be collated for publication that look at both theoretical and empirical approaches to including the participation of community and consumers in health and social policy. How will this workshop build on existing research? What hypotheses do the chairs seek to explore? What makes these hypotheses original and how will they further the available research on the key issue raised?The key hypothesis that this panel explores are centred on the idea that health and social policy/programs are improved by the inclusion of community members and consumers in all phases of policy development. Yet, this will only occur when meaningful engagement and deep inclusion takes place, allowing for a transfer of power to traditionally disenfranchised groups. This builds on existing literature that explore the inclusion of community members and consumer members in health and social policy processes. The key gap that this panel seeks to explore is around the evaluation of community and consumer participation and whether this can have a significant impact on the ability of policy and programs to improve health equity. There are a number of pathways via which greater voice to disadvantaged groups would be expected to contribute to improved health equity. Health inequities are produced by poorer access to economic and social resources, education and health care, increased exposure to environmental and social hazards as well as through stress, which may contribute to poorer health either directly or indirectly through the adoption of coping strategies (Blane, 1993; Macintyre, 1986; Townsend, Davidson, & Whitehead, 1990; Wilknison, 1996). Greater incorporation of disenfranchised populations in governance could improve health equity by developing social resources, improving access to resources, reorientating services to meet community needs and improving living and working conditions (Marmot, Friel, Bell, Houweling, & Taylor, 2008). Yet, there exists a paucity of evaluative works exploring the transfer of power and deep inclusion of community members and consumers. What types of contributions would interest the panel chairs? The presentation must describe the kind of papers the chairs would like to receive: empirical, theoretical, methodological?The aim of the workshop is to showcase the latest evidence and methods to measure participation and to model the impact community members and consumers. The workshop will consist of a series of lectures and discussions from international experts and will leave room for participants to interact and discuss important participatory issues with the speakers. It provides a forum for the exchange of expertise between researchers, policy makers as well as community and consumer advocates. Participants will be asked to provide details of questions or topics of particular interest which may be discussed in the final session. The panel seeks papers that are empirical, theoretical and methodological approaches to participation of consumers and community members in health and social policy. Which methods will the workshop use? The document should explain the dynamics of the sessions, final outcomes, follow-up and possibility of publication.There will be two mornings sessions that will allow for 15 minute presentations with time for questions and an afternoon session. Presentations will be grouped into theoretical approaches, methodological approaches and empirical approaches and presented on each of the three days. The final session of each day will summarise current practices and identify emerging tensions as well as future directions. The aim of the workshop is to allow for dialogue and collaboration between each of the areas. Of interest is how various countries are implementing participation and to compare perspectives. If we are successful in having our panel selected to participate at IWPP-18 in Pittsburgh, we intend to approach the following journals about a Special Issue: o Health Policy o Implementation Science o Social Science and Medicine We think that it would be a good idea to have more evaluative and methodological papers selected for the Special Issue, but that are theoretically grounded. Hence, collaboration between participants are encouraged to collaborate on papers. If the chairs have already identified possible participants, they should provide the titles of the paper proposals and the authors' references. At all events, this list of paper proposals must contain a maximum of 10 papers before it can be opened to other participants.At this stage, identified potential participants include authors from Australia, Chile, Brazil and Canada, and we expect that following the call for papers this list will be expanded. The following participants have expressed interest in presenting a paper at the workshop: – Prang, KH. “Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australia” – Pedrana, L. & Ferdinand, A. “Strategies to increase Indigenous community participation in health: Lessons from Chile, Australia and Brazil” – Ferdinand, A. “Indigenous autonomy through community participation: A dream deferred?” – Oyarce, AM. “Enabling participatory approaches in health through reframing medical education”. – Kelaher, M. “Supporting community capacity and participation in evaluation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services, policy and programs”. – La Brooy, C. “Comparing expert and consumer involvement in the creation of consensus statements and clinical guidelines”.