LIST OF WORKSHOPS

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

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.  This panel tackles questions about the portability of theories of the policy process. Should 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?

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.

The workshop is dedicated to methodological openness and welcomes papers from all approaches. A special issue is envisaged. Further publications may be considered.

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. This panel tackles questions about the portability of theories of the policy process. Should 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?

Anat Gofen is a senior lecturer in the Federman School of Public Policy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research focuses on outliers and their role in the public sphere, with emphasis on the interrelationship between citizens, government, and policy implementation. Her current research aims at the theorization of the broader significance of policy noncompliance in democratic societies, when it is approached as a heterogeneous phenomenon that might take various forms. Specifically, this project aims at distinguishing patterns of noncompliance according to a set of analytical dimensions, which provide the basis for theorizing the conditions that may drive policy noncompliance among street-level workers or individual citizens to policy change. New concepts such as entrepreneurial exit, street-level divergence, and policy dissonance have been proposed by Gofen in previous publications in order to shift the focus from conventional normative perspectives on noncompliance to an alternative paradigm that views noncompliance as a potential mechanism for social innovation that contributes to the public well-being at large.

Previous publications related to noncompliance research include:

Gofen, A. 2012. "Entrepreneurial Exit Response to Dissatisfaction with Public Services," Public Administration, 90(4): 1088-1106.

Gofen, A. 2014a. "Mind the Gap: Dimensions and Influence of Street-Level Divergence," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2)473-493. (This paper was selected to be published in a collection entitled “Public Administration” edited by B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, by SAGE Publications in December 2014, as part of SAGE Library of the Public Sector).

Gofen, A. and Blomquist, P. 2014b. "Parental Entrepreneurship in Public Education: A Social Force or a Policy Problem?" Journal of Educational Policy, 29(4) 546-569.

Gofen, A., Bresler-Gonen, R. and E. Golan-Hoss. 2014c. "’Hey, Mayors, Leave Them Kids Alone’: Entrepreneurial Citizens, Policy Noncompliance, and Local Government Response," Urban Affairs Review, 50(3):391-416.

Gofen, A. 2015a. "Citizens’ Entrepreneurial Role in Public Service Provision," Public Management Review, 17 (3):404-424.

Gofen, A. and Needham, C. 2015. "Service Personalization as a Response to Noncompliance with Routine Childhood Vaccination," Governance, 28(3):269-283.

Gofen, A. 2015b. Reconciling Policy Dissonance: Patterns of Governmental Response to Noncompliance," Policy Sciences, 48(1):3-24.

Fritz Sager, PhD, is a professor of political science at the KPM Center for Public Management at the University of Bern, Switzerland. Sager is specialized in administrative studies and theory, policy research and evaluation, organizational analysis, and Swiss politics. Sager has widely published on policy analysis and evaluation in both the Swiss political context and in international comparison, most recently in the two books ‘Policy-Analyse in der Schweiz’ (Sager, Ingold and Balthasar 2017) and ‘Evaluation im politischen System der Schweiz’ (Sager, Widmer and Balthasar 2017). Recent work regards a variety of subjects such as evaluation and democracy (in EPP), multilevel implementation (in JEPP), the multiple streams framework in implementaiton research (in JPP), blame avoidance behaviour (in PSJ and EPSR), the political economy of capital cities (with Routledge), the independence of policy evaluations (in AJE), or the transatlantic transfer of administrative ideas (with E.Elgar). Sager’s research has won the Marshall E. Dimock Award 2009 for the best lead article in Public Administration Review, the Highly Commended Paper Award at the Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2013, the Prix SEVAL 2015 by the Swiss Evaluation Society and the IPSA 2016 Best Comparative Policy Paper Award in 2017.