LIST OF WORKSHOPS

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.

As described above, public policy scholars increasingly analyze public policy problems along with problem structures such as wickedness, complexity, uncertainty, or conflicts. As an outcome, 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. But while this problem-structural approach is gaining momentum, political scientists continuously call for better understanding the actual politics behind problem structuring and specifically how politics effects the construction of problems and respective solution strategies. The workshop therefore aims at addressing the neglected perspective of politics in problem structuring, focusing on the role of politics in policy construction and its effects in policy design and implementation.

Against this background, the panel welcomes contributions which advance our understanding of the role of politics in problem structuring, specifically at the stage of policy design and implementation. Contributions should address at least one of the three set of research questions:

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?

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?

Given the panel's synthetizing nature, we welcome research contributions that focus on different steps of the policy process such as policy design or implementation. We further invite papers that consider different theoretical angles, such as rational or constructivist approaches. Empirically, we invite contributions related to various policy fields such as environmental policy, health, security, technology, or agricultural studies, or that even span various policy fields such as the water-energy-food nexus. Rigorous quantitative or qualitative analysis that are comparative in nature and that go beyond single policy fields, regions, and time scales are particularly welcome.

In addition, we look for commentaries of high-level speakers from the field of public policy, incubating cross-paper discussions with respect to the three key workshop questions and the assumptions suggested by the workshop proposer. Ideally, these input statement take place in the morning of each workshop day, thus setting the scene for critically reflecting the individual papers and enabling to derive overarching lessons learnt and future research questions.

Finally, all commenters and paper proposers are asked to indicate their interest in a joint special issue in a public policy or environmental management journal, with submission deadline after the workshop in fall 2022 and eventual publication in 2023. This indication is not obligatory but helps the proposers to identify relevant journals and to effectively prepare the way forward prior to the workshop.

Public policy scholars increasingly analyze public policy problems along with problem structures such as wickedness, complexity, uncertainty, or conflicts. This particularly holds true for so called nexus problems, which arguably span different policy (sub-)fields such as the water-energy-food nexus, the environment-development nexus, the environment-health nexus, or the water-security nexus. As an outcome, 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.

But while this problem-structural approach is gaining momentum, political scientists continuously call for better understanding the actual politics behind problem structuring and specifically how politics affects the construction of problems and respective solution strategies. Against this background, this workshop aims at addressing this neglected perspective on politics in problem structuring, focusing on the role of politics in policy construction and how respective constructions then affect policy design and implementation. 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?

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?

To address these questions, the workshop suggests a dynamic format, combining (i) the presentation and discussion of 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.

Dr Sabrina Kirschke is a Senior Research Associate at UNU-FLORES, where she contributes to the research, academic, and capacity development activities in integrated resource management. Before joining UNU-FLORES, she worked at the Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in Magdeburg, Germany and at the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung GmbH in Eschborn and Uganda. She is particularly interested in understanding complexity designs of resource nexus problems and to developing governance strategies to addressing these problems in practice.

Dr Hannah Kosow is a researcher, project manager, and lecturer at the Center for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Studies at the University of Stuttgart. Before, she has been working in research and policy advice at the IZT Institute for Futures Studies and Technology Assessment, Berlin, and DIALOGIK, Stuttgart. She focuses on environmental scenarios and qualitative system analyses of complex socio-environmental problems. Currently she works on conflicts and policy design in the fields of water and land use.