LIST OF WORKSHOPS

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).

International Public Policy Association (IPPA)

The International Public Policy Association will hold International Workshops on Public Policy at the University of Pittsburgh from 26th to 28th June 2018. The purpose of these workshops is to allow 15-20 scholars to meet together for three days of intensive discussions of papers on a common them.

When
26th – 28th June 2018
Where
University of Pittsburgh, USA
Paper submission
15th November 2017 – 30th January 2018
Notification due
20th February 2018
 

We call for papers for the workshop “Institutional innovation to tackle complex public problems in Latin America”.

Latinamerican countries face multiple development problems that, in spite of their complexity, have gained priority in the public agenda during the last two decades. Democratic governments have introduced diverse 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 a genuine democratization of society and government.

Many recent approaches on complexity in public issues rely exclusively on technical approaches and fail to include the political dimension. On the other hand, contemporary public policy and governance studies have started to treat decision-making processes as dynamically complex, consider erratic patterns of decision-making and pay attention to the iterative processes of social construction, problem framing and the development of policy alternatives. Nevertheless, the connection between institutional reforms, social actors’ empowerment and democratic governance in Latin America has not been scientifically studied.

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.

Participants will contribute to the comprehension of the theme with their papers and the discussions that will take place in the workshop.  Papers must be at most 20 pages in length total and 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.

All papers must be submitted electronically via IPPA website. For more information contact:

·      Maria Ester Mancebo: memancebo@gmail.com

·      Cristina Zurbriggen: criszurbriggen@gmail.com

As part of an extremely unequal region, Latinamerican countries face multiple development problems that, in spite of their complexity, have gained priority in the public agenda during the last two decades. Democratic governments have introduced diverse 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 a genuine democratization of society and government.

Many recent approaches on complexity in public issues rely exclusively on technical approaches and fail to include the political dimension. On the other hand, contemporary public policy and governance studies have started to treat decision-making processes as dynamically complex, consider erratic patterns of decision-making and pay attention to the iterative processes of social construction, problem framing and the development of policy alternatives. Nevertheless, the connection between institutional reforms, social actors’ empowerment and democratic governance in Latin America has not been scientifically studied.

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.

Alexander, Pierre, J, Sullivan H. Lewis J.M (2015).  ‘The AIM of Governance: Tackling Wicked Governance Challenges Through a Multi-Dimensional Approach’

International Conference on Public Policy, Milan.

Ansell, C. (2011).  Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy. Oxford University Press.

Asselt, M. B. A. van, Mesman, J., & Van ’t Klooster, S. A. (2007). Dealing with prognostic uncertainty. Futures, 39, 669-684.

Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Bristol: Policy Press.

Bason, C. (2014). (ed.) Design for policy, Farnham: Gower Publishing Ltd

Boyd, E., Nykvist, B., Borgström, S., & Stacewicz, I. A. (2015). ‘Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience’. Ambio, 44(1), 149-161.

Biesbroek, G. R. Challenging Barriers in the Governance of Climate Change Adaptation (Wageningen Univ., 2014). Jordan, A. & Huitema, D. Environ. Polit. 23, (2014)

Dewey, J., (1920). The Public and Its Problems (New York: Holt, 1927; London: Allen & Unwin, 1927); republished as The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry (Chicago: Gateway, 1940).

Frantzeskaki N, Tilie N. (20149The Dynamics of Urban Ecosystem Governance in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Ambio. 2014;43(4).

Folke, C. (2016) “Resilience (Republished)”. Ecology and Society 21(4):44. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444

Geels, F.W. (2014). ‘Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective’, Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21-40.

Geels, F.W. (2005). ‘Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 72, 681-696.

Geels, F.W. (2002). ‘Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study’, Research Policy, vol. 31, 1257-1274.

Godet, M.(2006). Creating futures:scenarioplanningasastrategicmanagementtool. Paris:Economica.

Groves,D.G.,&Lempert,R.J.(2007).Anewanalyticmethodfor finding policy-relevant scenarios. Global EnvironmentalChange, 17(2007),73–85.

Hauck J, Gorg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamaki O, Jax K. (2013Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives.Environmental Science & Policy. 2013

Inayatullah,S.(2005).Causallayeredanalysis:post structuralis ma method. InR.A.Slaughter(Ed.), The knowledge base of futures studies:professional edition Foresight International

Kooiman, J. (2003): Governing as governance. London: Sage.

Klijn, E. H. (2008). ‘Networks as perspective on policy and implementation’ in: S.Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham & P. Ring (2008), Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press pp: 118-146

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer,  Diana Wright (editor), Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Masini, E. (2006).Rethinkingfuturesstudies[EleonoraMasini:Thedoyenoffuturesstudies]. Futures 38(10),1158–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. futures.2006.02.004

Noordegraaf,M.,vanderSteen,M.,&vanTwist,M.(2014).Fragmentedorconnectiveprofessionalism?Strategiesforprofessionalizingtheambiguous work of policystrategists. Public Administration, 92(1), 21–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/padm.12018. vanderHeijden,K.(2005). Scenarios: theartofstrategicconversation. Sussex:JohnWiley&Sons.

Peters, B.G. (2017) Policy Design: From Technocracy  to Complexity, and Beyond  University, Toronto  Final draft 7, April 19

Peters, B.G,  & Pierre, J. (2015). ‘Governance and policy problems: instruments as unitary and mixed modes of policy intervention’, in: Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 2015 Vol. 37, No. 4, 224–235.

Pierre, J. & Peters B.G. (2005). Governing Complex Societies. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Pierre, J. & Peters, B. G. (2000), Governance, Politics and the State (New York: St. Martin’s Press).

Primmer E, Furman E. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosystem Services.2012

Popa F., Guillermin M&Dedeurwaerdere T. (2015.) “A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science”, Future 65 (2015), 45-56.

Rip, A. & Kemp, R. (1998). ‘Technological Change’, in: Rayer, S. & y Malone, L. (eds.). Human Choice and Climate Change, vol. 2 ‘Resources and Technology’.Washington D.C., Battelle Press, 327-399.

Rip, A. & Kemp, R. (1996). Towards a Theory of Socio-Technical Change. Enschede, University of Twente. Mimeo.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

Regeer, J.B., Hoes, A-C., van Amstel-van Saane, M., Caron-Flinterman, J.F. & Bunders, J.F.G. (2009). ‘Six guiding principles for evaluating mode-2 strategies for sustainable development’, in: American Journal of Evaluation, December 2009 vol. 30.

Sabel, C.F. (2012) “Dewey, Democracy and Democratic Experimentalism, in Contemporary Pragmatism, Vol. 9, No. 2.

Sabel, C.F. & Zeitlin, J. (2012) ‘Experimentalist governance’, in: D. Levi-Faur (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schultz, L., Folke, C., Österbloma, H. & Olsson, P. (2015). Adaptive governance, ecosystem management and natural capital Edited by Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, and approved April 28, 2015.

Schon D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books Publishing, New York.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, United States of America.

Schön, D. (1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Aldershot: Arena (Ashgate).

Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: BasicBooks.

Shove, E. & Walker, G., (2007). ‘CAUTION! transitions ahead: politics, practice and sustainable transition management’, Environment and Planning A 39, 763– 770.

Spaapen, J.M. & Van Drooge, L. (2011). ‘Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social assessment’, Research Evaluation, 20(3), 211-218.

Teisman, G.R., Buuren, M.W. & Gerrits, L.G. (2009). Managing Complex Governance Systems. Routledge, London.

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).

Vinka, M. B.,van der Steen M. & Dewulf, Art (2016). “Dealing with long-term policy problems: Making sense of the interplay between meaning and power”. Futures,Volume 76, February 2016, Pages 1–6.

Voorberg, W. H.; V. J. J. M. Bekkers; & L. G. Tummers  (2014) A Systematic Review of Co- Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey, Public Management Review

Wellstead, A.M., Howlett, M., Rayner, J., 2013. The Neglect of Governance in Forest Sector Vulnerability Assessments: Structural-Functionalism and Black Box Problems in Climate Change Adaptation Planning. Ecol. Soc. 18 (3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05685-180323.

Van der Duin,P.A.,vanOirschot,R.,Kotey,H.,&Vreeling,E.(2009).To governis to foresee:an exploratory study into the relationship between futures research and strategy and policy processes at DutchMinistries. Futures, 41(9), 607–618.