LIST OF WORKSHOPS

24 WORKSHOPS FOUND

T01W01. SDG Education for Global Citizenship: Policy Transfer and Knowledge Localization

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

L. Pal

E. Tok

ABSTRACT

The objective of this workshop is to bring together the Lead Project Investigators (LPIs) of a recently launched 5-year research grant on SDG education and global citizenship so that they can share their work with international policy scholars working on SDGs and policy transfer. The workshop will be semi-closed, with one session for the LPIs, and possibly two others with invited papers. While the workshop will focus on selected themes, it is anchored in a broader multidisciplinary project on SDGs and Education supported by the Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF). The title of project is SDG Education and Global Citizenship in Qatar: Enhancing Qatar’s Nested Power in the Global Arena, and was launched in late 2021. The Cluster Director is Dr. M. Evren Tok of Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar (co-chair of the workshop). Leslie A. Pal (co-chair of the workshop) is one of the LPIs. The practical and applied objective of project is to produce a creative space in the educational ecosystem in Qatar which is conducive to support, study, and implement SDGs education and practice. The theoretical and analytical objective of the project is to interrogate the theory and practice of SDG Education (SDGED) as a species of international policy transfer. The framing of SDGED within the climate crisis and sustainability, and the coupled framing of the climate crisis with eco-system and hence political instability, and the further coupling of these themes with peace and human rights and education, gives SGDED a remarkable force and momentum. The SDGs themselves (or Agenda 2030) were only adopted in 2015, but by 2019, UNESCO called attention to the importance of, and urgent need for, increased Global Citizenship Education (GCED), and framing this effort in the loftiest of terms. GCED was in response to the alarming rise in human rights violations, inequality, and poverty that threaten global peace and sustainability. GCED integrates the “principles, values and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education,” to create a sense of belonging to a “common humanity”. In 2016, a UNESCO report argued that GCED “empowers learners to take informed decisions and responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic viability and a sustainable society, for present and future generations, while respecting cultural diversity”. GCED is positioned to build on the work of Peace and Human Rights Education to instill in learners the values, skills, attitudes and behaviors that support responsible global citizenship and urges learners to become agents of change in their communities, to face and resolve global challenges, to endorse cultural differences while preserving their national identity, and to live healthy and fulfilled lives. The project is divided into eight sub-projects that examine existing initiatives, policies, knowledge, and curricula in Qatar and review global best-practices related to education and advancement of the SDGs. In its practical applications, it will work with students, teachers, administrative and leadership personnel, relevant government personnel, and schools to identify progress in advancing SDGED and GCED in Qatar. This IWPP workshop focuses on a trio of theoretical and analytical themes that underpin the larger project: (1) SDGs as a “global public policy framework”, (2) the making of “global citizens via SDG Education, and what that means for policy making processes, and (3) policy transfer and the localization of knowledge models. This is admittedly ambitious for a single workshop, but the session with the project PIs will provide a foundation and a tour d’horizon, and the invited sessions can supplement and enrich the discussions. The first theme of “global public policy” has been at the heart of numerous debates within various ICPP conferences (Stone, Making Global Policy [2020] provides a review of the literature), and drives discussions in the policy transfer field as well (see Hadjiisky, Pal, Walker (eds), Public Policy Transfer [2017]). There are numerous policy fields, from financial regulation to travel, transportation, and public health, that are “orchestrated” through networks of international organizations and national states. The orchestration may be uneven and at times inept but is clearly a key feature of modern public policy. But above and beyond this orchestration by policy fields is what we think of as “overarching policy frameworks” that super-charge global institutions and affect virtually every policy field at the national level. The two interconnected ones of interest here are the Paris Climate agreement and the SDGs. The combination of climate emergency, a vast and rapid consensus (at least rhetorically) on that crisis, and the coupling with the 17 SDGs has created a space of global policy discourse that frames planetary priorities as the necessary touchstone for domestic policy making. “Making of global citizens via SDG Education” is the second, related theme of the workshop. UNESCO, cited above, illustrates the logic perfectly. All of humanity is threatened by the climate crisis, by inequality, by injustice, and by human rights violations and violence. Our common challenges should call forth our common humanity, and our stance should be one of global, not national, citizens. Education is an instrument to “make global citizens” since all of us have to be educated to the threats, and educated to the SDGs as a common, global aspiration. UNESCO hedges its language by “endorsing cultural differences” and “preserving national identity”, but the larger agenda of identity formation is unmistakable. The third theme is policy transfer and knowledge localization through global policy frameworks like the SDGs and specific initiatives like SDGED and GCED. The policy transfer literature has tended to focus on the transfer of policy frameworks and policy instruments, models, and standards, and less on the more granular transfer and localization of what we will call “knowledge models”. These are conveyances of both information and knowledge frameworks that shape the attitudes and perceptions of ordinary citizens. SDGED “empowers” learners and encourages them to become “agents of change”. A leading example of this effort is the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), formed under the auspices of the UN and directed by Jeffrey Sachs. The SDSN has a Global Academy, which has developed lesson plans and learning models and other resources on the SDGs in multiple languages for K through 12. The three themes form a rich backdrop to a set of research question and hypotheses that will animate the workshop. Among them are: 1. How do the SDGs illustrate the features of “global public policy” frameworks? Are there similar frameworks of the same scope and depth? How are global policy frameworks promoted and implemented? 2. To what extent do global policy frameworks try to shape and make “global citizens”? Is this a necessary feature of such frameworks, or only some? What are the implications for domestic policy making in this type of identity formation? Are “global citizens” less oriented to national priorities, and is that the intent? 3. Has the policy transfer literature neglected the transfer of knowledge and information, and its localization, particularly in educational fields? Are there particular types of knowledge localization that are less technical (e.g., as would be the transfer of professional skills and standards) and more overtly political (aiming at identity formation), and what are the implications? The closed workshop session will have papers by six PIs, reflecting on these themes. Some of the papers will use Qatar as a case study. The general call will hopefully attract papers on the same general themes, but with different comparative cases, thereby enriching the empirical and theoretical debate. Presenter 1: Muhammed Kebbeh and Leslie A. Pal Title: Mapping Global SDGED Practices as Models of Policy Transfer Presenter 2: Dr Tasneem Amantullah Title: Mapping the status of SDGED policy and practices in Qatar Presenter 3: Dr Michael Romanowski Title: SDGED in Primary & Secondary Schools in Qatar: Citizenship Formation Presenter 4: Dr. Eugenie Samier Title: Embedding GCED and SDGED with Integrative Ethical Education (IEE) Framework Presenter 5: Dr Jennifer Bruder Title: Sustainability Literacy and Awareness of SDGs Presenter 6: Dr Evren Tok and Dr. Duygu Sever Title: Spaces of SDG in Qatar: Putting Research into Action

POLICY TOPICS

Policy Process

T01W02. Constructivist and Pragmatist Approaches of Policy Process

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

P. Hassenteufel

P. Zittoun

C. Ansell

ABSTRACT

WORKSHOP CHAIRS: P. HASSENTEUFEL, W. DUNN, C. ANSELL & P. ZITTOUN Although constructivist and pragmatist approaches have a long history in the social sciences, especially in sociology, they continue to be poorly represented in the public policy literature. Ironically, the pragmatist approach had a major impact on the founding of public policy studies through its influence on Harold Lasswell (Dunn, 2019). A core idea of pragmatism is that the best way to understand concepts is not to define them, but to observe them "in action," a perspective that connects pragmatism to social constructivism and its focus on problem framing and agenda-setting. Taking the two perspectives together suggests that policy scholars need to observe the definitional work of actors in order understand policy processes. Our objective is not to reduce the diversity of either constructivist and/or pragmatist approaches but rather to explore how their combined insights might further illuminate the policy process. By bringing together researchers who work in both pragmatist and constructivist traditions, the workshop hopes to foster fruitful discussions and debates that could stimulate new international perspectives on public policy. In contrast with positivist approaches that stress variable-centered explanations of the policy process, pragmatist and constructivist approaches tend to adopt an interpretive mode of explanation that stresses the reflexivity of policy actors as they “define the situation” and engage in policy action. Both traditions focus on the central role of communication and signs, meaning and discourse in setting agendas, shaping collective identities, and create understanding of public and private value. In seeking to develop this agenda, the workshop welcomes researchers who are interested in drawing broadly on the intellectual resources of pragmatist and social constructivist traditions in the social sciences. This workshop has an ambition to bring together pragmatism and constructivism to articulate a new approach to the policy process. To do so, the workshop seeks to highlight fundamental questions about the theoretical, conceptual and methodological foundations of this approach. However, the workshop also welcomes empirical research that investigates how processes of problem definition and public debate shape policy processes, particularly where they illuminate the role of power and domination.

POLICY TOPICS

Policy Process

T01W03. The politics behind problem structuring. Construction and effects of problem structures in policy design and implementation

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

S. Kirschke

H. Kosow

ABSTRACT

Public policy problems are increasingly described along with structural characteristics as a starting point for further theory building and empirical analysis (Peters, 2005; Peters & Pierre 2015). One particularly prominent example is the wickedness of problems (e.g., Rittel & Webber, 1973; Head, 2019), which likely influences the solvability of problems and the choice of relevant instruments and tools in policy design. Related approaches are considering the uncertainty (e.g., Dewulf & Biesbroek, 2018) or the complexity of problems (e.g., Kirschke & Newig, 2017), highlighting specific aspects of wicked problems as a starting point for discussing participatory and legal instruments for their solution. This particularly holds true for so called nexus problems, which arguably span different policy (sub-)fields such as within the water-energy-food nexus, the environment-development nexus, the environment-health nexus, the water-security nexus, the migration-development nexus, the water quantity-quality nexus, and others (see e.g., Bleischwitz et al., 2018; Pahl-Wostl 2019 for the most prominent W-E-F Nexus concept). Scholars suggest a variety of policy and governance strategies for effectively dealing with these wicked problems, such as coherent policy mixes or participatory governance arrangements (e.g., Nilsson et al., 2012; Nilsson & Weitz, 2019; Dargin et al., 2019). But while this problem-structural approach is gaining momentum, political and administrative scientists have continuously called for better understanding the actual politics behind problem structuring and specifically how politics effects the construction of problems and respective solution strategies (Weiss, 1989; Hisschemöller & Hoppe 1995; Turnbull, 2006; Hoppe, 2011). This is of relevance in ex-post analysis, but particularly holds true for emerging wicked problems, which calls for ex-ante analyses of how different actors aim for influencing problem (re-)structuring at the stage of agenda setting, policy design, and implementation (Kirschke & Kosow, 2021; Schaub 2021) and the respective “iterative process of problem sensing, problem categorization, problem decomposition and problem definition” (Hoppe, 2018). Considering the structural characteristics in problem definition, the main assumption is that the definition of more or less wicked problems likely influences the type of solution strategy chosen, just as how rapidly solution strategies get implemented. Calling a problem complex or wicked, for instance, can hint to a complex understanding of a topic by the speaker(s) of a discourse, which might translate into careful considerations of the specificities of the situation and of adequate, tailored solutions. But calling a problem complex or wicked can also be a label, used as an argument to get a seat at the table in closed shop negotiations; or it can be an excuse to not act, but to get lost in data collection through participatory formats. Understanding actors, their interests, and power relationships in the definition of problem structures in different arenas and how these influence policy outcomes is therefore key. Against this background, this workshop aims at addressing this neglected perspective of politics in problem structuring, focusing on the role of politics in policy construction and its effects in policy design and implementation, more particularly. Three research questions will guide the discussions: 1) Construction of problem structures I: What are the potential structural characteristics of public policy problems, and how can policy problems differ along with these structures? Can we identify, for instance, different degrees of complexity, uncertainty, or conflicts in different policy fields, in different regions, or at different scales? 2) Construction of problem structures II: Which roles do different actors from the public and private sector, civil society and academia play in the construction of problem structures of public policy problems, and what impacts do their interests and power relationships have? 3) Effects of problem structures: Which effects have (the constructions of) public policy problems on selected solution strategies in terms of policy and governance, including their likelihood to address problems effectively or in a rather symbolic matter? We assume that problems are described along various problem structures, such as wicked, complex, uncertain, or conflicts. We further assume that problems are structured differently. They include rather simple/tame or rather complex/wicked problems, depending on the respective policy (sub-)field, the temporal, and the regional scale (see also Head 2008, Kirschke et al., 2019). Coming to the actual politics behind these structures, we may find that different actors structure problems differently, based on their knowledge and interests. We may also find that these actors’ power sources and relationships account for dominant problem structures in specific policy (sub-)fields, at different moments in time, and in different regional settings. This again, may affect the choice of policy mixes, including substantive and governance measures that aim for occupation (e.g., data collection, persuasion) versus action (e.g., construction, regulation), and thus also for more symbolic or effective policies (e.g., Newig, 2007). To discuss the politics behind problem structuring, the workshop suggests a dynamic format, combining (i) input statements by invited speakers, (ii) the presentation and discussion of conceptual and empirical research papers with (ii) more flexible discussion sessions in which different research results shall be connected to sketch out a joint and enhanced model of the role of politics in problem structuring. These discussions shall advance our understanding and analysis of problem-structural approaches in policy analysis across policy fields, regions, and time. It shall, in particular, help moving to a more fundamental understanding of the role of problem structures in policy design and implementation and better aligning structural approaches with public policy literature throughout the policy process as recent analyses in the wicked problem literature have asked for (e.g., Head, 2019). In terms of papers, we tend to invite a mix of policy scholars, including long-term experts in the field and younger scholars, specifically PhD candidates and Postdocs, adding new (empirical) perspectives on the issue at hand. So far, we are delighted that Robert Hoppe and Brian Head have both agreed to provide a commentary on the workshop questions, stimulating discussions amongst the participants. Further, we are glad that colleagues from the field of environmental policy have shown interest in discussing the topic further, amongst them Simon Schaub (University of Heidelberg), Ramazan Caner Sayan (Cranfield University), and Nidhi Nagabhatla (UNU-CRIS). The paper givers are invited to submit their research to a special issue on the politics behind problem structuring edited by the workshop proposers. This special issue should be placed in a renown public policy or environmental planning journal, depending on the submissions and interests of the workshop participants. References Bleischwitz, R., Spataru, C., VanDeveer, S. D., Obersteiner, M., van der Voet, E., Johnson, C., ... & Van Vuuren, D. P. (2018). Resource nexus perspectives towards the United Nations sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 1(12), 737-743. Dargin, J., Daher, B., & Mohtar, R. H. (2019). Complexity versus simplicity in water energy food nexus (WEF) assessment tools. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 1566-1575. Dewulf, A., & Biesbroek, R. (2018). Nine lives of uncertainty in decision-making: strategies for dealing with uncertainty in environmental governance. Policy and Society, 37(4), 441-458. Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public policy, 3(2), 101-118. Head, B. W. (2019). Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy and Society, 38(2), 180-197. Hisschemöller, M., & Hoppe, R. (1995). Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowledge and Policy, 8(4), 40-60. Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering, participation. Policy Press. Hoppe, R. (2018). Heuristics for practitioners of policy design: Rules-of-thumb for structuring unstructured problems. Public policy and administration, 33(4), 384-408. Kirschke, S., & Newig, J. (2017). Addressing complexity in environmental management and governance. Sustainability, 9(6), 983. Kirschke, S., Franke, C., Newig, J., & Borchardt, D. (2019). Clusters of water governance problems and their effects on policy delivery. Policy and Society, 38(2), 255-277. Kirschke, S., & Kosow, H. (2021). Designing policy mixes for emerging wicked problems. The case of pharmaceutical residues in freshwaters. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1-12. Newig, J. (2007). Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. Environmental politics, 16(2), 276-296. Nilsson, M., Weitz, N., (2019). Governing Trade-Offs and Building Coherence in Policy-Making for the 2030 Agenda. Politics Gov. 7, 254–263. Nilsson, M., Zamparutti, T., Petersen, J. E., Nykvist, B., Rudberg, P., & McGuinn, J. (2012). Understanding policy coherence: analytical framework and examples of sector–environment policy interactions in the EU. Environmental policy and governance, 22(6), 395-423. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2019). Governance of the water-energy-food security nexus: A multi-level coordination challenge. Environmental Science & Policy, 92, 356-367. Peters, G. B. (2005). The problem of policy problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 7(4), 349-370. Peters, B. G., Pierre, J. (2015). Governance and policy problems: instruments as unitary and mixed modes of policy intervention. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 37(4), 224-235. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169. Schaub, S. (2021). The Politics of Water Protection (Doctoral dissertation). Turnbull, N. (2006). How should we theorise public policy? Problem solving and problematicity. Policy and Society, 25(2), 3-22. Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy sciences, 22(2), 97-121.

POLICY TOPICS

Policy Process

T01W04. Policy Processes in Authoritarian Settings

VIEW

G. Shockley

E. Petridou

ABSTRACT

Introduction Agency has always been important in the conception of entrepreneur. Since the work of Joseph Schumpeter in the first half of the 20th century, entrepreneurs have been considered salient societal actors because their innovative actions disturb economic and social equilibriums (Becker, Knudsen and Swedberg, 2012). The scholarship on policy entrepreneurship has its roots mainly along two broad lines within political science. One trajectory is within political economy and public choice literature with synergies with the Austrian School of Economics, especially the work of Israel Kirzner. In this trajectory, the policy entrepreneur is an agent in the market for public goods; policy entrepreneurship, then, refers to strategies for the effective cooperation in solving (wicked) commons problems. A second trajectory in the policy sciences spearheaded by the Kingdon and his book Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, first published in 1984, focuses on the policy entrepreneur as a driver for policy change. he concept of the policy entrepreneur is attractive not only because it foregrounds the role of agency in understanding policy change, but also because it provides a rich alternative to the thin, purely rational portrayals of actors in policymaking processes. Conversely, the theoretical narrative regarding policy entrepreneurs focuses on their commitment to a policy solution, the variety of strategies they use to promote that solution, and a suite of attributes and skills underpinning their actions. Whereas skills may be acquired and learned, they are facilitated by attributes that may be nurtured (Mintrom 2019). Considering the position and utility of policy entrepreneurs (a distinct class of political actor [Petridou and Mintrom, 2020]) in theories of the policy process, the concept has two-fold theoretical implications. On the one hand, it helps us explore the possibilities of agency and the agentic capacity of actors within a theoretical framework. On the other, it provides insights regarding the conditions that may foster or hinder success in the policy entrepreneurs’ quest for policy change. Below we offer examples of conceptualizations of the agency of the policy entrepreneur within theories of the policy process. Institutionalism Through much of the twentieth century, institutional accounts of government processes were highly descriptive, describing features of government agencies and processes and making normative assumptions about how people acted within them. Institutionalism fell out of favor during the prevalence of behaviorism, but this changed as political scientists such as James March and Johan Olsen (1983) explored interactions between individuals and institutions. A common element that emerged was the focus on institutional design and how specific design features incentivized specific actions (Ostrom 2009). Institutionalist accounts of the policy process and policy change identify considerable space as well as limitations for motivated individuals and groups to have impact. Multiple Streams Framework The Multiple Streams Framework, first advanced by John Kingdon (1984/2011) and further theorized by Nikolaos Zahariadis (see, for example, Zahariadis 20014) seeks to explain policy change under conditions of ambiguity and as an alternative to rational-choice rationales (Petridou 2014). Kingdon (1984/2011) argues that policy issues ascent to the political agenda as the result of developments in three separate process streams: the problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics stream. Most of the time they operate largely independently of one another, but converge periodically. Policy entrepreneurs often join these three independent streams by identifying and taking advantage of (or creating) windows of opportunity, which are often preceded by a focusing event (Zahariadis 2014). Punctuated Equilibrium Theory A discrepancy exists between accounts of why policy change sometimes occurs slowly and other times dramatically. To reconcile these accounts, punctuated equilibrium theory conceptualizes political processes as generally characterized by stability and incrementalism punctuated with infrequent spikes of substantial change. In this interpretation of the policy making process, the task for advocates of policy change is to bring the policy issues into the public arena. The challenge for those seeking change is to undermine existing present policy images and create new ones that emphasize major problems and question the sustainability of the status quo. Policy entrepreneurs may be instrumental in doing just that. Advocacy Coalition Framework Although the original scope of Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was limited to the American policy arena, significant revisions have increased its scope of application to European and even developing countries (Sabatier and Weible, 2007; Petridou 2014). Entrepreneurial leaders are able to seize opportunities while creating a positive vision for the coalition for the purpose of attracting additional resources and use them strategically (see also Mintrom and Vergari, 1996). Within ACF, change comes from both internal and external sources. However, to have political effect, those catalysts for change need to be appropriately interpreted and translated. This process of translation portrays situations in ways designed to increase the likelihood that they will receive the decision makers’ attention. The process of interpretation has similarities with problem definition, a key strategy used by policy entrepreneurs as documented in recent literature. Narrative Policy Framework The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) has risen to prominence as a theory of the policy process over the past decade. Michael D. Jones and Mark K. McBeth (2010) argued that policy narratives can be studied using systematic empirical approaches (Shanahan et al., 2018). Actors highlighted for special attention within NPF are the “policy marketers”. The literature has already identified similarities between policy marketers and policy entrepreneurs. Petridou and Mintrom (2020) argue for a direct insertion of the concept of the policy entrepreneur as a central player in NPF holds the potential to further enrich theorization of the policymaking process and guide new empirical explorations. Scientific Objective This workshop endeavors to develop both the concept of the policy entrepreneur and theories of policy process by connecting them through the notion of agency. As with NPF, we maintain that the concept of the policy entrepreneur potentially enriches our understanding of not only theories of the policy process generally, but also agency within the policy process specifically. This is doubly true for emerging that have not systematically explored the role of agency so far. Then, as our theories advance, new empirical directions open. Depending on the quality of submissions, a journal special issue could result from the workshop. References Becker, Markus C., Thorbjørn Knudsen, and Richard Swedberg. 2012. "Schumpeter’s theory of economic development: 100 years of development." Journal of Evolutionary Economics 22 (5): 917-933. Herweg, Nicole, Nikolaos Zahariadis, and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. 2018. "The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications." In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edition, eds. Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, 17-53. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Jones, Michael D., and Mark K. McBeth. 2010. "A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong?" Policy Studies Journal 38 (2): 329-353. Jones, Michael D., and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2015. "The Narrative Policy Framework: child or monster?" Critical Policy Studies 9 (3):3 39-355. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2015.1053959. Kingdon, John. W. 1984/2011. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (3rd ed.). Boston: Longman. March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. 1983. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life.” American Political Science Review 78(3): 734-749. Mintrom, Michael. 2019. Policy Entrepreneurs and Dynamic Change. New York; Cambridge University Press. Mintrom, Michael, and Philippa Norman. 2009. “Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change.” Policy Studies Journal, 37(4): 649-667. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00329.x Mintrom, Michael, and Sandra Vergari. 1996. “Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Entrepreneurs, and Policy Change.” Policy Studies Journal 24: 420–34. Mintrom, Michael, and Sandra Vergari. 1998. “Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms.” Journal of Politics 60: 126–48. Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Petridou, Evangelia. 2014. “Theories of the Policy Process: Contemporary Scholarship and Future Directions.” Policy Studies Journal 42: S12-S32. Powell, Walter W. and Paul J. DiMaggio. Eds. 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Roberts, Nancy C. and Paula J. King. 1996. Transforming Public Policy: Dynamics of Policy Entrepreneurship and Innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, Mark, and Paul Teske with Michael Mintrom. 1995. Public Entrepreneurs: Agents for Change in American Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Stephanie M. Adams, Michael D. Jones, and Mark K. McBeth. 2014. "The blame game: narrative persuasiveness of the intentional causal mechanism." In The Science of Stories, eds. Michael D. Jones, Elizabeth A. Shanahan, and Mark K. McBeth, 69-88. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, Mark K. McBeth, and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2018. "The narrative policy framework." In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edition eds. Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, 173-213. New York: Routlege. Weible, Christopher M. and Paul A. Sabatier. 2009. “Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy Subsystems.” Policy Studies Journal 37(2): 195-212. Weible, Christopher M., Paul A. Sabatier, and Kelly McQueen. 2009. "Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework." Policy Studies Journal 37 (1): 121-140. Weible, Christopher M. 2018. “Moving forward and climbing upward.: Advancing policy process research. In Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edition, eds. Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, 363-378. New York: Routledge. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2014. Ambiguity and Multiple Streams. In Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd edition, eds. Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible (Eds.) 25-58. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

POLICY TOPICS

Policy Process

T01W11. Regime transitions and public policies

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

Z. Adam

Comparative Policy

T02W02. What to learn from the ‘natural experiment’ of the COVID-19 pandemic - implications for theories and methods of comparative health policy

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

V. Burau

E. Kuhlmann

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT. The COVID-19 pandemic is a unique, natural experiment, where societies and governments across the globe have been confronted with a major public health crisis and broadly similar challenges, around roughly the same time. There has never before been a global health crisis of this severity and magnitude. This has resulted in a range of, more or less, similar policy responses, but important differences remain; for example, the impact and outcome of policy responses vary strongly between health systems. As such, the COVID-19 pandemic offers a very rich laboratory to raise and address a plethora of research questions for scholars of comparative public policy. For instance, what explains the broadly similar policy responses observed in different healthcare systems around the world? What role does state capacity play in explaining differences in outcome? How do politics and policies interplay with broader social, cultural and economic circumstances? The pandemic has exposed the relative strengths and weaknesses of societies and governments in terms of their ability to respond to crises. This is reflected in the renewed interest in social inequalities as a basic indicator of government performance and, more specifically, of the ability of governments to maintain societal cohesion. Studies have shown how the pandemic has exposed and even worsened existing social inequalities as well as created new ones. There has also been a heightened interest in resilience as the capacities of government to prepare for, deal with and learn from crises. Studies have examined particular resources, actors and capacities that enabled resilience across a range of policy sectors and discussed the underlying institutional factors. RESEARCH QUESTIONS & HYPOTHESES. This has been the focus of the existing public policy literature on the COVID-19 pandemic, based on initial responses during the first six to nine months of the pandemic. Now the time is ripe to take the next step and to review existing theories and methods of comparative public policy as well as to identify the political-practical lessons to be learned from the pandemic. The workshop does this, based on a critical examination of the field of comparative health policy. This is because health policy has been at the forefront of public policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, over the past three decades, the study of health policy across different countries has developed into a major field of research of comparative public policy. Our hypothesis is two-fold. First, that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the salient and well-known weaknesses of comparative health policy, in particular the reliance on theories that use explanations based on health systems and the corresponding use of methodological approaches based on descriptive, quantitative methods. Second, that the pandemic pushes for more comprehensive empirical research in comparative health policy, which draws on more complex theoretical frameworks and makes greater use of explorative, qualitative methods and in-depth case studies. Based on this, the workshop addresses three research questions.1) How to revise or move beyond health systems?2) How to understand the health policy process?3) How to understand and conceptualise the actors at play? STATE OF THE ART. The first research question concerns the use of the concepts of health systems and institutions for understanding comparative health policy. Studies of comparative health policy have drawn heavily on the concept of health systems as more or less fixed sets of system-level institutions. However, the inclusion of a wider range of countries challenges the applicability of existing typologies and indeed the very dimensions on which these typologies are based. For instance, recent health reforms have combined policy approaches borrowed from different health system types; most countries have implemented universal healthcare coverage policies, but also rely on market elements. This can most clearly be observed in resource-poorer settings, e.g. in Eastern European countries as well as in Latin America. Studies have also highlighted the considerable diversity of institutional arrangements within one country. This points to the importance of different sub-domains, for example, primary health policies and elderly care policies. For instance, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a general tendency of health policy efforts to prioritise technical resources (hospital beds, respirators) and protection of hospital healthcare workers, while long-term care was neglected. Taken together, this points to the greater complexity of institutional arrangements, including broader political institutions and also at different levels. The second research question is about how to understand processes of making health policy in a comparative perspective. Research on comparative health policy has long drawn, more or less explicitly, on the concept of the policy cycle and the notion that it is possible to distinguish between different phases of policy making, most prominently between decision-making and implementation. This rests on a view of policy making as essentially top-down strategy and driven by political-administrative actors. Studies of governance have challenged this perspective and have instead pointed to the plurality of both, arenas for policy making and actors involved. Policy making emerges as a complex process that can also occur bottom-up and simultaneously in different arenas and involving a diverse range of actors. Analyses of initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic underline this point, reflecting highly accelerated policy making and a broad reach in terms of levels and policy actors involved. Here, professionals acting from the bottom-up, for example as ‘street level bureaucrats’, are ideally placed to making up policy as they go along in the context of the emerging pandemic. The third research question relates to actors in health policy. Studies of health politics have typically focused on collective actors at the national level, such as parties, ministries and interest organisations. The more integrated nature of policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic underlines the fact that we still lack a more comprehensive knowledge about the actors in health policy. This is in terms of a broader range of actors, including those, who are marginalised in the policy process, such as less qualified professionals and carers at the interface of formal and informal labour; as well as in terms of the specificities of actors in health policy, namely their interests, resources and interactions. This more inclusive perspective on policy actors tallies with recent contributions to studies of professions and the literature on street level bureaucracy. This perspective also calls for greater attention to the social positioning of these actors both as collective players and as individuals; gender and racial inequalities are particularly important to understand their power resources and roles in the policy process. PAPERS & AGENDA. We invite papers which use thorough empirical analysis of health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic as a steppingstone to discuss specific theoretical and/or methodological implications for the comparative study of health policy. We welcome papers: that reflect on what institutions matter and how; that examine the more integrated nature of health policy making and possible conceptualisations; and that analyse a greater diversity of actors in health policy and discuss gender-sensitive and intersectional approaches. Ideally, the papers draw on a comparison of at least two countries. The workshop is divided into three parts, reflecting the main research questions of the workshop. This ensures a clear focus and facilitates synthesis across related papers. Further, we will nominate at least one discussant for each paper, and we will allow time for plenary discussions at the end of each of the three parts as well as the workshop. Taken together, this helps to secure the impact of the workshop, namely what the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us about how to use institutions, policy processes and policy actors as theoretical concepts in comparative health policy. Our plan is to use the workshop as a steppingstone for developing a special issue to be submitted to the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis as first choice (Health Policy/Elsevier as an alternative option). The workshop offers an ideal opportunity to survey the global field of possible contributors and to identify the strongest contributions. This also helps to secure a substantial impact on public policy research.

POLICY TOPICS

Comparative Policy

T02W03. FAMILY COMPLEXITY AND SOCIAL POLICY AROUND THE WORLD

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

D. Meyer

M. Hakovirta

C. Skinner

ABSTRACT

GENERAL OBJECTIVES The organizers of this proposed workshop led a successful panel on Family Change at the IPPA 2021 Conference. The panel received more abstracts than we could accept, demonstrating substantial interest among researchers around the world. The two sessions of the panel were quite productive, highlighting current work, showing potential synergies between researchers, and leading to lively discussion about how research on family policy could move forward to be more impactful, furthering both knowledge and actual policy change. There is consensus in the academic literature that families are changing around the world. Whether this is described as the Second Demographic Transition or discussed in terms of whether family patterns are converging around the world, the reality of change is acknowledged. There is also a sense that family policies have not necessarily taken some of these changes into account. To introduce this area of interest, we highlight one such demographic change, the increasing trend in many countries toward children spending substantial (or equal) time living separately with each parent following parental separation. This family form, shared care, is creating difficulty for policy in that many programs are available only for families with children, so it is unclear whether both parents should be eligible or only one. As an example, should the rules for public housing provide a bedroom for a child in each parent’s home, or only one? Even more difficult, some means-tested policies have larger benefits for larger families, and for these policies the benefit schedule generally does not consider children who live in a family part-time. Should benefit schedules be changed to allow for part-time residents? Several of the papers we received for IPPA 2020 panel examined policies surrounding shared care, with papers exploring the extent to which parents with shared care were eligible for family benefits, whether a country’s custody policies were related to the kinds of families that share care, and parental satisfaction with these arrangements. Indeed, we carved out one of our two sessions to focus on the policies surrounding shared care. The papers, and various discussions we have had since, have shown us substantial policymaker and researcher interest in shared care, and we would like to gather researchers interested in these issues together to substantially increase what is known in this area. However, a workshop focused only on policies surrounding shared care in different countries would be interesting but would not have the richness that may be possible if the discussion is grounded in a broader conversation about family change and whether policies are working well for those with diverse family forms. As a result, we propose a workshop that discusses family change and family policy more broadly, hoping that any discussions of shared care can draw on discussions of ways other family constellations are treated in policy in various countries. Our objectives are: (1) to add to the state of knowledge on the extent of family change and the way that policy is responding to these changes around the world; (2) to bring together individual researchers (and research teams) working in different countries and working on different policies to learn from each other, and in so doing to further the quality and quantity of research in this area; (3) to identify ways that countries can learn from each other in adapting policies to fit new family forms; (4) to discuss actionable policy steps that are supported by research; and (5) to promote this policy area among early-career researchers who will then be poised to make sustained impacts on policy. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE Within most countries, substantial diversity in children’s family experiences exists. Many children experience their parents’ separation, and an increasing number of these children are splitting time between both parental homes. Many children whose parents separate then face their parents’ re-partnering, bringing potential earners and/or caregivers and perhaps new siblings into their lives. Many children now live in extended-family households. Moreover, these family changes are not uniformly experienced, but many are especially prevalent among those with lower socioeconomic status. The proportion of children who experience family change has increased over time. Increases in cohabitation and in same-sex partnerships, declines in marriage, dramatic changes in fertility, increases in family instability, changes in co-residence with grandparents or other kin, and substantial changes in children’s living arrangements after divorce in some countries have all transformed the context in which family policy operates. Yet many family policies were designed during a different period and were presumed to be addressing families defined by husband-wife couples in stable relationships who lived with their biological children. The overarching interest in this workshop is whether these policies have been adapted to fit contemporary family patterns. For example, is parental leave available only to biological/adopted parents, or also to stepparents, grandparents or other kin who are acting as primary parts of the child’s family? How do countries provide for same-sex couples if their parental leave policies are different for mothers and fathers? Are the rules for inheritance the same if individuals cohabit versus marry? Does a country count the resources and needs of extended family members who co-reside in their means-tested income support program? Who is obligated to provide for children when a parent has had children with multiple partners? The overarching research question for this workshop is: “What are a country’s family patterns, and are their current family policies working well considering these patterns?” Papers could explore the following hypotheses (or related ones): (a) the extent to which a country has adapted or instituted policy that reflects diverse families is related to the degree of family change within that country, the level of gender equality, and ideologies about family; (b) policies that focus on individuals rather than families as the unit of analysis are more effective at supporting a broad array of family forms; (c) policies are less effective when they do not match what a country’s family patterns actually are (e.g., countries whose policies do not provide cohabiting couples with equal rights to married couples may experience more difficulties if they have high rates of cohabitation). POTENTIAL PAPERS We are aware of some current projects and have asked researchers for titles of papers for which they would consider submitting abstracts. We received responses from researchers around the world (Colombia, US, Finland, Australia, Germany, Belgium, UK, Malaysia, and Sweden), and authors include students, postdoctoral fellows, researchers, professors, and those within government: Papers about child support: · “Child support policy and access to justice: Evidence from custodial mothers in Colombia.” Assistant Professor Angela Guarin, Universidad de Los Andes (Colombia) and Researcher Kasey J. Eickmeyer, Self-Employed (Colombia) · “Child support policy and poverty among custodial-mother families in Chile and Colombia: A longitudinal analysis.” Assistant Professor Laura Cuesta, Rutgers University (US) and Researcher Sarah Reynolds, University of California, Berkeley (US) · “Child support policy in middle and low-income countries.” Assistant Professor Laura Cuesta, Rutgers University (US); Senior Research Fellow Mia Hakovirta, University of Turku (Finland); Research Assistant Mari Haapanen, University of Turku (Finland); and Professor Daniel R. Meyer, University of Wisconsin-Madison (US) · “Child support: Revisiting the adequacy–equity conundrum in changing times in Australia and the US”, Professor Bruce Smyth, Australia National University; J. Thomas Oldham, University of Houston (US); and Director Prem Aleema, Commonwealth Ombudsman (Australia) Papers about shared care and child custody: · “Post-divorce placement arrangements and resource sharing across households: A comparative analysis of the United States, Finland, and Germany.” Professor Judith Bartfeld, University of Wisconsin – Madison (US); Professor Lawrence Berger, University of Wisconsin – Madison (US); Research Assistant Mari Haapanen, University of Turku (Finland); Senior Research Fellow Mia Hakovirta, University of Turku (Finland); Researcher Anneli Miettinen, Social Insurance Institution (Finland); Postdoctoral Fellow Quentin H. Riser, University of Wisconsin – Madison (US); and Professor Anja Steinbach, University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany). · “Supporting shared physical custody in Belgium and Italy: the role of local policies.” Professor Laura Merla, UCLouvain (Belgium) and Postdoctoral Researcher Lorena Izaguirre, UCLouvain (Belgium) · "They're (not) staying put: child custody enforcement in Belgium." Postdoctoral Researcher Elke Claessens, University of Antwerp (Belgium) and Professor Dimitri Mortelmans, University of Antwerp (Belgium) · “What is the problem? Policy-makers perception and response to benefit adjustments to accommodate shared parenting.” Director Tina Haux, National Centre for Social Research (UK) Other papers about family policy and family change: · “Exploring the roles of public policy in supporting single mother families in Malaysia.” Senior Lecturer Zarina Md Nor, Universiti Sains Malaysia · “A family-friendly and equal transition to parenthood? Social transfers and earnings development in different-sex and female same-sex couples in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.” Researcher Marie Evertsson; Postdoctoral Fellow Ylva Moberg; and Postdoctoral Fellow Maaike van der Vleuten, Stockholm University · “Family transitions, poverty and child conduct and emotional issues.” Professor Morag Treanor and Dr Patricio Troncoso, Heriot-Watt University (UK)

POLICY TOPICS

Comparative Policy

T02W04. Policy and capacity dismantling in the context of democratic backsliding

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

M. Morais de Sa e Silva

Governance

T04W02. The Determinants and Effects of Institutional Arrangements

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

M. Casula

Y. Steinebach

ABSTRACT

RESEARCH QUESTION: Which political and institutional factors affect how different implementation arrangements are chosen? And, how different implementation arrangements impact policy implementation? CONTEXT: The starting point of our workshop are essentially two observations. The first observation is that governments must deal with an ever-increasing number of societal challenges. These issues range from, for instance, climate change, rising inequality, global pandemics to the management of immigration flows. Governments typically address and try to solve these issues by the production of new public policies (Adam, et al. 2019). These new policies, however, imply new implementation tasks that directly turn into additional work burden for those in charge of their implementation. The second observation is that governments face fundamental fiscal and ideological barriers to also constantly expand the capacities that are necessary to properly execute and enforce the policies produced (Bozeman, 2000; Limberg, et al. 2021). There are various reasons for these constraints including globalized financial markets that limit the government capacity to extract resources from the economy and society as well as the dominance of neoliberal ideas such as austerity (Lobao, et al. 2018). In consequence of these ‘diverging’ trends of ever-more policies up for implementation and limited administrative capacities and resources available, it is highly important to optimize implementation arrangements and structures in a way that they allow for the highest level of implementation effectiveness. Unfortunately, however, the current state of the research on implementation arrangements and structures suffers from several blind spots that makes it difficult to propose suitable solutions. STATE OF ART: Implementation arrangements and structures are of long-standing concern in public policy and public administration research. The major debate has centered on the question whether public policies are typically implemented through a “single lonely organization” (Peters, 2015: 132) or if it needs a “multiorganizational analytic perspective” (Hjern and Porter, 1981: 201) to fully understand and grasp the implementation process (Sætren and Hupe, 2018). Other scholarly contributions, in turn, have analysed changes in the composition of the type of actors (governmental/business/non-profit) involved in implementation arrangements (Hall and O’Toole 2000). A good deal of literature on implementation found that implementation structures generally, and increasingly, involve multiple actors from both the public and the private sector (Thomann, et al. 2018; Steinebach 2021). While existing scholarship thus provides some knowledge on the inter-temporal dynamics of implementation arrangements, we know much less about cross-sectional variation. Why do governments in different spatial contexts opt for different implementation arrangements - and this even in case of quite similar policy measures? What determines the ‘choice’ of certain implementation structures? And what difference does this choice ultimately make for the functioning of public policies? Existing scholarship provides little to no answer on these questions. This is particularly surprising given that Schneider and Ingram (1997) considered decisions regarding the implementation arrangements as “fundamental empirical elements of public policy” (see Schneider and Sidney 2009: 104). HYPOTHESES: The workshop would like to explore some preliminary, and under-investigated hypotheses on the reasons that push towards the choice of different implementation arrangements. As preliminary step, we advance five general, and competing working hypotheses that are: (1) The choice of implementation arrangements is guided by functional considerations; (2) The choice of implementation arrangements is guided by political considerations; (3) The choice of implementation arrangements is determined by the actors' capacities in shaping the implementation capacities; (4) The choice of implementation arrangements is driven by path dependence and policy-administrative legacy; (5) The choice of implementation arrangements is based on the characteristics of the adopted policy instruments. Moreover, we expect that (6) The choice of implementation arrangements will ultimately make a difference for the performance (effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy) of public policies. PAPERS: The panel welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions, including comparative analysis (both cross-sectorial and -national). Topics related to new societal and environmental challenges (e.g., climate change, pollution, poverty reduction of equality, sustainable mobility, digital society, etc.), as well as to the study of the new implementation arrangements and structures chosen to cope with the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak (e.g., vaccination policy, economic recovery packages, etc.) are particularly welcome. Contributions with a qualitative or quantitative approach are equally appreciated. AGENDA: The workshop will be designed to be a forum for in-depth discussion on research in progress, and collaboration among participants. We intend to facilitate and encourage the participation of and the interaction between young ICPP members, advanced scholars, and well-established researchers. Each participant is expected to contribute and present an own paper as well as participate in the discussion of the other papers presented. For each paper, there will be a discussant designated by the Chairs. As final outcomes, the chairs will summarize the main results of the workshop within the last session and open a broader discussion on the general topic. In the aftermath of the workshop, the Chairs will work on a Special Issue proposal for a leading journal on public policy/public administration such as Policy & Society or Public Policy and Administration. POSSIBLE PAPERS: We do not have already identified specific participants. However, the two Co-Chairs are very active within the IPPA community and participated in the main Panels/Workshops on policy implementation organized as part of the IPPA activities (e.g., ICCP4, ICPP5, IWPP1, etc.). As a consequence, they have a long list of potential authors that can be involved in this workshop, and that, on a preliminary basis, have already given their willingness to present their ongoing research on these topics. These scholars include, amongst others, Christoph Knill (LMU Munich), Muiris MacCarthaigh (Queen’s University Belfast) and Eva Euchner (Fliedner University of Applied Sciences). REFERENCES: Adam, C., Hurka, S., Knill, C., & Steinebach, Y. (2019). Policy accumulation and the democratic responsiveness trap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters B. G. (2014). Implementation structures as institutions. Public Policy and Administration. 29(2): 131-144. Hjern, B. & Porter, D.O. (1981). Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis. Organization Studies. 2(3): 211-227. Limberg, J., Steinebach, Y., Bayerlein, L. & Knill, C. (2021). The more the better? Rule growth and policy impact from a macro perspective. European Journal of Political Research. 60: 438-454. Lobao, L., Gray, M., Cox, K. & Kitson, M. (2018). The shrinking state? Understanding the assault on the public sector, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(3): 389–408. Sætren, H. and Hupe, P.L. (2018), Policy Implementation in an Age of Governance, in E. Ongaro and S. van Thiel (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe, Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 553-575. Schneider & Ingram (1997). Policy Design For Democracy. Kansas City: University Press of Kansas. Schneider, A. & Sidney, M. (2009), What Is Next for Policy Design and Social Construction Theory?. Policy Studies Journal, 37: 103-119. Steinebach, Y. (2021), Instrument choice, implementation structures, and the effectiveness of environmental policies: A cross-national analysis. Regulation & Governance. Thomann, E., Hupe, P. & Sager, F. (2018). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance. 2018; 31: 299–319.

POLICY TOPICS

Governance

T05W01. Evidence based policies: a realistic perspective on knowledge utilisation in public policy

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

M. Galanti

V. Pattyn

ABSTRACT

Evidence Based Policy (EBP) as a manifestation of knowledge utilisation informed by data and scientific evidence is a relevant subject of inquiry for public policy and is generally considered quintessential for good governance. Evidence is commonly seen as holding much value for policy makers in solving societal problems and in legitimating their decisions, especially under conditions of uncertainty and complexity. As it currently stands, evidence-based policy is widespread as a leitmotif and normative principle in highly technical policy sectors, such as health or environment policies, but can find itself in good currency also in sectors where the importance of values, beliefs and interests are typically seen to be strongly present. Despite a growing consensus about ‘evidence informed policy’ (Head, 2016) as a more realistic and appropriate label to approach the role of evidence in policy making, a basic epistemological dilemma persists among scholars applying a rational view about the phenomenon, and more constructivists who view the role of evidence as the result of an interplay among actors and resources in an often chaotic and unpredictable environment. Scholars adopting the latter perspective have highlighted how the use of evidence in policies cannot be taken for granted, and is far from a linear process (Sanderson, 2006; Strassheim and Kettunen, 2014). Literature discusses a wide range of drivers and impediments for evidence utilisation (Oliver, 2014a; 2014b; Johnson et al. 2009; Leviton and Hughes, 1981), relating to the characteristics of the evidence supplied, the actor configurations prevailing in a particular policy setting, the attributes of the evidence producer and consumer, or the way how evidence is built and constructed along the policy process -to name but a few of the plethora of conditions influencing evidence use. While our knowledge base on determinants for evidence use is gradually expanding, important theoretical and empirical gaps remain when it comes to understanding the conditions and mechanisms for evidence use, and the specific role which evidence takes in different stages of the policy process. More in particular, despite the multitude of factors that have been named to be influencing evidence use, we still know little about the technical, organisational, and systemic factors that play a role in this process, and how these interact. As for the technical side of evidence-based policy making, we lack key insights about the type of capacities (analytical, strategic, or communicative) that facilitate (or hamper) the use of evidence in the policy process. Policy capacity, as a phenomenon, is addressed by a growing scholarly community (Wu et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2017). Yet, insights in this field have only been limitedly connected to the EBP. As such, it remains a puzzle whether there are any (combination of) capacities that are necessary and/or sufficient to make evidence ‘work’ within and across contexts. An in-depth scrutiny of different types of capacities can add value to both literatures, i.e. revolving around policy capacity, or EBP. In the same line of thinking, at a meso-level, it remains unclear which actor constellations, institutional or organisational arrangements foster or hamper access and use of evidence in the policy process. Within the evaluation field, for instance, researchers have expressed concerns about the limited returns of a strong institutionalisation of policy evaluations (Leeuw and Furubo, 2008; Raimondo and Leeuw, 2021). The question is yet whether and how organisations can promote the utilisation of evidence in an effective way, through ‘smart’ organisational procedures, and when or which institutional arrangements do not matter at all in fostering evidence use. Similar knowledge deficits exist when approaching evidence based policy from a macro-oriented lens. While literature has shown how different knowledge regimes (Campbell and Pedersen, 2014), advisory systems (Craft and Howlett, 2012), or civic epistemologies (Jasanoff, 2011) may impact how evidence is conceived in a particular setting, the implications for the actual use of evidence in particular settings have hardly been scrutinized. More systematic research is needed on how exactly political, cultural or economic conditions can promote or hamper evidence use, and how mechanisms may unfold in different settings. Having such evidence can help advancing middle-range theories, in line with more realistic understandings (Pawson and Tilley, 1997) of evidence use. Other than research on influencing factors for evidence use, the field would strongly benefit from a more fine-grained unravelling of the policy process when studying EBP (Cairney 2016). Despite the label, evidence based ‘policy’, studies are often not specific as to the stage of policy making (agenda-setting, formulation, decision, implementation and evaluation) on which different types of evidence have an impact (Oliver et al. 2014a). Similarly, literature is often very concise in terms of the actor configurations using particular types of evidence in these different policy phases. Do politicians resort to different evidence manifestations than bureaucrats, for instance, and why is this so? And what about the role of media, external policy advisors, think tanks, or other experts in this evidence process? Similarly, and importantly, research remains fragmented about the very type of output that evidence generates in different technical, organisational and political settings. On which conditions and through which key mechanisms can evidence impact problem definition, instrument selection, coalition building, instrument calibration, or learning and legitimation? Evidence based policy making is currently dealt with by different literature strands (Oliver and Boaz, 2019), making it challenging to keep the overview of available knowledge in this regard, and rendering it almost impossible to draw any systematic conclusions on the linkage between different types of evidence, the antecedents for evidence use, and the actual impact on the policy process. This workshop aims to enhance our understanding of how evidence is generated and used in the different phases of the policy process, in an effort to advance the field conceptually, theoretically and practically. Conceptually, it challenges scholars to articulate more explicitly what type of knowledge is more likely to be used in different contexts, and urges scholars to operationalise the influence of knowledge, expertise, or advice in a more robust and rigid way (Christensen 2021). Theoretically, it deliberately opens the black box of how technical, organisational and system level attributes foster or jeopardize the uptake of evidence in different stages of the policy process, and through which key mechanisms this operates. Insights generated also hold much practical potential, and can contribute to more coherent, efficient and effective policy designing, which takes account of the particularities of specific policy settings. References Cairney, P. (2016), The politics of evidence-based policy making. Springer, Palgrave Macmillan. Campbell, J.L. & Pedersen, O.K. (2014). The National Origins of Policy Ideas: Knowledge Regimes in the United States, France, Germany, and Denmark, Princeton University Press, New Jersey Christensen, J. (2021), Expert knowledge and policymaking: a multi-disciplinary research agenda, Policy & Politics, 49(3), 455-471 Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79-98. Head, B. W. (2016). Toward more “evidence‐informed” policy making? Public Administration Review, 76(3), 472-484. Jasanoff, S. (2011). Designs on nature. Princeton University press. Johnson, K., Greenseid, L. O., Toal, S. A., King, J. A., Lawrenz, F., & Volkov, B. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 377-410. Leeuw, F. L., & Furubo, J.‑E. (2008). Evaluation Systems: What Are They and Why Study Them? Evaluation, 14(2), 157–169. Leviton, L. C., & Hughes, E. F. (1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis. Evaluation review, 5(4), 525-548. Oliver, K., Boaz, A. (2019) Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations. Palgrave Communications, 5(60): 1-10. Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014a). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC health services research, 14(1), 1-12. Oliver, K., Lorenc, T., & Innvær, S. (2014b). New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health research policy and systems, 12(1), 1-11. Pawson, R., Tilley, N., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Sage. Raimondo, E., & Leeuw, F. L. (2021). Evaluation systems and bureaucratic capture. Locked in the system and potential avenues for change. In B. Perrin & T. Tyrrell (Eds.), Comparative policy evaluation: Vol 29. Changing bureaucracies: Adapting to uncertainty, and how evaluation can help. Routledge. Sanderson I (2006) Complexity, ‘practical rationality’ and evidence-based policy making. Policy Politics 34(1):115–132 Strassheim H., Kettunen P. (2014) When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evidence & Policy 10(2):259–277 Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3-4), 165-171. Wu, X., Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (Eds.). (2017). Policy capacity and governance: Assessing governmental competences and capabilities in theory and practice. Springer

POLICY TOPICS

Policy Design

T05W02. Policy Design in the Face of Malignancy and Malicious Policy-Making Behaviour: Managing Inherent Policy Risks

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

M. Howlett

T. Legrand

M. Moon

ABSTRACT

Policy-makers and scholars must deal with many policy risks including not only ‘external’ threats but also those internal risks stemming from the ‘dark side’ of policy-making. These latter risks include activities such as (mis) behaviour on the part of policy-makers and policy takers who may mispromote ‘client’ interests; maliciously penalize or punish their opponents; (mis)use their power and position to enrich themselves of their allies; and manipulate policies for electoral or personal gain. These aspects of policy-making are some of the ‘inherent vices’ of the subject, meaning they are part of the very nature of policy, which makes it volatile or prone to failure. This workshop will examine these risks, assess whether they are growing in the contemporary period and especially look at how they can be managed through effective policy design. SCIENTIFIC RATIONALECousins (2018) has identified the emergent volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (‘VUCA’) of this world as the central characteristics of the contemporary policy environment. His work has begun the process of drawing out the consequences of VUCA for public policy-making. It is reasonable to ask if the policy science developed in an earlier era of more proactive, and apparently competent, government remains capable of dealing with the ‘new reality’ of not only interwoven and ambiguous policy problems but also to what extent contemporary thinking about policy-making is able to deal with this decidedly non-Panglossian reality. The malaise facing policy-makers and takers, however, is more than simply a capacity challenge. Howlett & Leong (2021) suggest that only some of the problems encountered by policy-makers and policy thinkers in the present era are due to changes in the external environmental, proposing rather that some problems have always been with us but have tended to be ignored by policy science; and can no longer be. That is, they suggest that there are certain inherent vices or risks to public policy - including uncertainty in policy-making; malice in policy-makers; and non-compliance in policy-takers - which together challenge many aspects of contemporary policy theory developed in earlier periods when these vices or risks were largely ignored in the pursuit of the holy grail of better (meaning not just more effective but optimal) policies and policy-making. These risks to policy-making can be framed as sources of policy volatility or the likelihood/propensity of any policy design to fail and Howlett and Leong argue policy designs must deal with them head-on rather than assume all will work out well in the best of all possible worlds (Howlett & Leong, 2021). And, as Legrand (2021) argues, some current problems in policy theory and practice are also the product of a crisis in the core values of liberal democracy which previously defined the telos of ‘the good state” towards which all policies were thought to be oriented or at least should be oriented towards. This crisis has been brought about by events such as: the ‘war on terror’ in the wake of 9/11, which, among other things, ushered into liberal democratic regimes many aspects of the surveillance state which are incompatible with many liberal freedoms; the financial collapse of 2007-2008, which ushered in more rapid growth of income inequality and has undermined belief in the equality of opportunity; and the challenges posed to nation states by immigration and refugee flows in the Post-Arab Spring era in the Middle East and Europe which has destabilised moves towards open borders and the free movements of goods and people. Many of these trends only promise to increase as wars and climate change impacts increase in a highly interconnected world and are only loosely related to, or encompassed by, thinking about the origins and consequences of a VUCA world. Commensurate to, and perhaps caused by events such as these, liberal democracies are undergoing an erosion in the rule of law; declining trust in institutions; extensive regulatory capture, especially by powerful energy firms; the normalisation of policy goals that transgress human rights; and deliberate obfuscation of the policy process by its core players in many countries who lambast the media and engage in corrupt and venal practices in government. This is the ‘dark side’ of policy-making, that citizens and policy-makers both must be alert to – the world of officials, companies and citizens, who mispromote ‘client’ interests; game rules and regulations, maliciously penalize or punish; (mis)use to enrich; and manipulate policy processes (for electoral or personal gain). (Howlett, 2020; Taylor et al (2021)). While these flaws and vices have been with us for some time, they flourish in volatile policy environments, and amidst the ‘dark’ misalignment of the public interest and policy settings which has accompanied the crisis of liberal democracy, it must be asked what are the prospects for policy studies to help resolve global challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity, displaced peoples, Covid-19, and state fragility in such contexts? A Fundamental Task for the Contemporary Policy Sciences: Understanding the Origins of Policy Volatility How is policy ‘malign’? As stated above, it is axiomatic to liberal democracy that policy-making should align with liberal democratic principles. Policy goals are thus expected to be produced through open mechanisms and participatory procedures through which the public can articulate its preferences to policy-makers and policy-makers are expected to listen to what has been said in determining their governments’ courses of action. The ethical basis of public policy is thus its alignment with liberal democratic principles, and it is thus malign where it does not do so. The ‘dark side’ outlined above is metaphorical in two senses: it refers to the opacity of decision-making process, and also to the malign motives of those responsible. This manifests in this special issue in several ways. First, malign policy is often opaque and moves in this direction are often telltale signs of non-Panglossian intent. Democracy demands that the public can properly evaluate government’s performance and reward or punish them in elections, and they require information in order to do this, which is largely provided by a free, untrammelled press corps. Hallsworth, et al. (2010) make this point succinctly: ‘The more that this process is illusory, the more democracy is undermined’. Second, malign policy is non-inclusive. The exclusion of the public, selectively or blanket, from participation in a policy is another non-Panglossian ‘tell’: structural & agential strategies to shape how policy is made (exclude, occlude, preclude and ostracise) are giveaways that objectives other than liberal democratic ones are being pursued (Legrand, 2021). Both these trends are exacerbated by the nature of the contemporary scholar-practitioner relationship where scholarship follows the funding set out for it by non-disinterested governments, NGOs, foundations and private companies. Increasingly the scholar-practitioner relationship is one in which government agencies act as agenda-setters and research-takers. Perhaps unintentionally, the discipline has flirted with regulatory capture whereby the scope of policy research is determined and its validity rubber-stamped (or not) by the subjects of the research itself – usually government. This would only be possible, however, in the Panglossian circumstance where the putatively shared goal of the policy scientist and the policy-maker is to serve and secure the public interest rather than, for example, their own electoral or career interests. The question of how policy scholars should engage with normative democratic principles continues to divide the policy sciences (see Wagle, 2000, for an excellent exposition). Although a distinct wave of ‘post-positivist’, critical and/or interpretivist scholarship emerged in the last two decades of the 20th century engaging with the role of values and beliefs – that is, politics – in decision-making, the larger thrust of research remains firmly oriented towards the production of modelling and generalizable insights that accrues from a dispassionate, scientific engagement with policy-making as a process that can, and should, be made more efficient in delivering government goals (see Farr, Hacker & Kazee, 2006; Durnova & Weible, 2020). We propose the use of terms such as policy volatility and policy malignancy as not as a new platform for research, but rather as a means to marshal the existing range of theoretical and conceptual viewpoints on these two aspects of contemporary policy-making and policy design as a shared research agenda for the policy sciences and especially those related to policy design. Specifically, we draw from recent work in policy studies that draws attention to these kinds of behaviours. On malign agents and their strategies in the policy process, Allan McConnell’s work is path-finding in its uncovering of ‘hidden agendas’ in policy-making: policies with covert aims behind their ostensible purpose (McConnell, 2018). Legrand (2021) adopts a similar perspective, showing how officials have manipulated the terms and structures of debates in Australia and elsewhere in order to diminish public scrutiny and exclude voices critical of security state initiatives from the political sphere. This is a topic of importance. Opacity in policy settings creates uncertainty & insecurity – a subject Stefan Bachtold examines in his work on the control of social media in Myanmar in the effort to damp down discontent with regime activity, from the Rohinga genocide to opposition to the recent military coup. (Bächtold, 2021; cf. Howlett/Leong, 2021). Relatedly, Taylor, McDonnell & Duong focus on ‘bureaucratic gaming’, drawing out policy-makers’ deliberate use of dubious behavioral practices in order to gain an advantage over one’s competitors, personal prestige and budget maximization, among other non-Panglossian goals and ambitions (Taylor, McDonnell, Duong, 2021). It is only fairly recently that the literature on policy design study and practice has recognised the importance of identifying and accounting for ‘risk’ (McConnell, 2010). Many policy-related literatures, especially those that fall under or overlap with political science, have long-accepted that the ideal of good governments is continually undermined by a range of pathologies, which variously include explanations of: how badly-construed information can skew government policy, especially where state and governance knowledge bases and capacities are limited; how decision-making might be motivated by interests other than the creation of public value, and; how policy targets – those whose behaviours government attempts to manage with policy instruments – embark in forms of lawful and unlawful ‘misconduct’, such as fraud, gamesmanship, evasion, deliberate non-compliance, and others, to undermine government intentions. Yet wider recognition of these pathologies has yet to carry over into the policy literature (Howlett, 2021 forthcoming; Howlett, 2020; Arestis & Kitromilides, 2010). As such, policy design thinking been criticised for its neglect of the ‘inherent vices’ of policy-making and policy design - the uncertainty inherent to real-world political settings, as well as endemic recalcitrance in policy-makers and policy-takers (Colebatch, 2018; Turnbull, 2018; Howlett, 2019). Identifying Possible Correctives In addition to simply emphasizing and better describing and classifying these behaviours and outcomes, scholars also wish to seek out correctives. New methodological means for assessing the risks of policy failure are important as are possible correctives or solutions to the impasse of Panglossian policy advice in the face of a VUCA world. For those who recognise these challenges, the risks of failure can be mitigated by incorporating safeguarding principles in the design process. Some, such as Walker, Haasnoot, & Kwakkel (2013), posit essential qualities that, when strengthened, can help deliver effective policy designs. This includes designing for: 1. resistance: planning for the worst possible case or future situation 2. resilience: making sure that the system can recover quickly whatever happens in the future 3. static robustness: aiming at reducing vulnerability in the largest possible range of conditions 4. dynamic robustness (or flexibility): planning to change policies over time, in case conditions change Policies can also be usefully framed as portfolios of risks. This approach borrows concepts from financial investment to suggest that diversification in ‘packages’ of policy approaches can balance out uncertainties and mitigate uncertainties involved in forecasting outcomes, and which can also be tailored to specific risk preferences (Teller & Kock, 2013; Project Management Institute, 2008; McFarlan, 1981; Olsson, 2008; Pellegrinelli, 1997; Sanchez et al., 2008; Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 1999; Sanchez, Robert, Bourgault, & Pellerin, 2009). Institutionalizing ‘foresight agencies’ tasked with anticipating or predicting contingencies, so as to diminish the risk of surprises affecting government agendas, can be an effective tool in some instances, as is enhancing and normalising evaluation and measurement activities in policy-making processes to counter or reduce the risk of incomplete or non-learning occurring (Dudley & Xie, 2020b; Dudley, 2020). The Open Questions Raising attention to these kinds of policy risks highlights the need to be better ordered both from atheoretical and an empirical point of view. From a theoretical point of view we need: 1. to better understand how these risks arise; 2. to better conceptualize the link between risks and management/mitigation strategies; and 3. to better theorize about policy risk classifications in order to simplify and thus better order the study of the complexity of the real world of policy design. 4. To better translate theoretical insights on risk into substantive principles of policy design. From an empirical point of view we need: 1. to better describe the policy risks present in different policy fields; 2. to better understand the diachronic evolution of such policy risks 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 mitigation (or not) of different types of policy risks 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 risk management mixes; and 5. To conduct more focused empirical research into understanding the diachronic evolution of policy risks. References Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207-216. Arestis, P., & Kitromilides, Y. (2010). What economists should know about public policymaking?. International Journal of Public Policy, 6(1-2), 136-153. Bächtold, S. (forthcoming) Myanmar’s digital conflicts. Malign policies, malign actors, or malign policy arrangements? The International Journal of Public Policy. Colebatch, H. K. (2018). The idea of policy design: Intention, process, outcome, meaning and validity. Public Policy and Administration, 33(4), 365-383. Cousins, B. (2018). Design thinking: Organizational learning in VUCA environments. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), 1-18. Dryzek, J.S., 1989. Policy sciences of democracy. Polity, 22(1), pp.97-118. Dudley, S. E. (2020). The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the durability of regulatory oversight in the United States. Regulation & Governance. Dudley, S. E., & Xie, Z. (2020). Designing a choice architecture for regulators. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 151-156. Durnová, A. P., & Weible, C. M. (2020). Tempest in a teapot? Toward new collaborations between mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies. Policy Sciences, 53, 571-588. Farr, J., Hacker, J. S., & Kazee, N. (2006). The policy scientist of democracy: The discipline of Harold D. Lasswell. American political science review, 100(4), 579-587. Hallsworth, 2010. Policy Making In The Real World Evidence and Analysis Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E., & Ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global environmental change, 23(2), 485-498. Howlett, M. (2019). The policy design primer: Choosing the right tools for the job. Routledge. Howlett, M., 2020. Dealing with the dark side of policy-making: Managing behavioural risk and volatility in policy designs. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(6), pp.612-625. Howlett, M. & Leong, C. (forthcoming) “Inherent Vices” of Policy-Making and Policy Design: Dealing with Risk, Volatility and the Propensity of Policies to Fail. The International Journal of Public Policy. Huber, J.D. and Powell, G.B., 1994. Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics, 46(3), pp.291-326. Jensen, O. (forthcoming). Climate risk perceptions and policy ambition. The International Journal of Public Policy. Leong, C., & Howlett, M. (2020). Theorizing the behavioral state: Resolving the theory-practice paradox of policy sciences. Public Policy and Administration, 0952076720977588. Legrand, T. (forthcoming) The Malign System in Policy Studies: structural and agential assemblages of political exclusion. The International Journal of Public Policy. Legrand, T. (2021). The Architecture of Policy Transfer: Ideas, Institutions and Networks in Transnational Policymaking. Masters, A. (2020). Robustness and the Governance Sin of Bureaucratic Animosity. In Quality of Governance (pp. 215-234). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. McGoey, L. (2019). The unknowers: How strategic ignorance rules the world. Bloomsbury Publishing. Pellegrinelli, S. (1997). Programme management: organising project-based change. International Journal of Project Management, 15(3), 141-149. Plehwe, D & Günaydin, K. (forthcoming). From infamous denial to mundane obstruction in Germany: Business Lobbies, Think Tanks and the Renewable Energy Sources Act. The International Journal of Public Policy. Sanchez, H., Robert, B., Bourgault, M., & Pellerin, R. (2009). Risk management applied to projects, programs, and portfolios. International journal of managing projects in Business. Taylor, T. McDonnell, J. & Duong, H. (forthcoming). Gaming of performance measures and targets in the public sector: Implications for policymaking. The International Journal of Public Policy. Teller, J., & Kock, A. (2013). An empirical investigation on how portfolio risk management influences project portfolio success. International Journal of Project Management, 31(6), 817-829. Turnbull, N. (2018). Policy design: Its enduring appeal in a complex world and how to think it differently. Public Policy and Administration, 33(4), 357-364. Wagle, U., 2000. The policy science of democracy: The issues of methodology and citizen participation. Policy Sciences, 33(2), pp.207-223. Wilson, W. (1886). The study of public administration.

POLICY TOPICS

Policy Design

T05W03. Understanding Health Governance: Instruments for Steering Health Policy

VIEW

PANEL CHAIR(S)

A. Bali

Urban Policy

LIST OF WORKSHOPS

POLICY TOPIC

SECTOR

24 WORKSHOPS FOUND

T01W01. SDG Education for Global Citizenship: Policy Transfer and Knowledge Localization

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W02. Constructivist and Pragmatist Approaches of Policy Process

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W03. The politics behind problem structuring. Construction and effects of problem structures in policy design and implementation

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W04. Policy Processes in Authoritarian Settings

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W05. Climate Policy Integration at stake

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W06. Public policies for hybrid governance

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W07. Policy Implementation in the Global South

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W09. Policy learning in contemporary policy contexts: Where? How? And for whom?

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W10. Policy Entrepreneurship and Agency in Theories of the Policy Process

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W11. Regime transitions and public policies

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T01W12. ACADEMICS, EXPERTISE, AND POLICY-MAKING IN TRANSITION DEMOCRACIES

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T02W01. Street-level bureaucracy in weak institutions

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T02W02. What to learn from the ‘natural experiment’ of the COVID-19 pandemic - implications for theories and methods of comparative health policy

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T02W03. FAMILY COMPLEXITY AND SOCIAL POLICY AROUND THE WORLD

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T02W04. Policy and capacity dismantling in the context of democratic backsliding

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T02W05. Institutions, Paradigms and Actors: Crafting Models to explaining policy change:

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T04W01. Promoting, regulating and standardizing emerging technologies

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T04W02. The Determinants and Effects of Institutional Arrangements

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS

T05W01. Evidence based policies: a realistic perspective on knowledge utilisation in public policy

PANEL CHAIR(S)

ABSTRACT

POLICY TOPICS