The intersection of uncertainty and multifaceted crises,  as manifested by climate change, COVID-19, and food shortages, has become a central concern in policy sciences (Weible et al., 2020). The literature on public policy highlights the challenges in governing complex issues, especially given that prevailing institutions tend to prioritize short-term, stable perspectives, sometimes to the detriment of effectively addressing these dynamic concerns (Auld et al., 2021; Levin et al., 2012). Such challenges are intensified by an evolving and sometimes contested knowledge base, owing to conflicting values or to the instability of rapid change. Moreover, scholars emphasize the inherent debates in problem-framing and the disagreements over issues and solutions. In democratic contexts, the idealized view of a policy process rooted in rationality often clashes with political dynamics, disputes, and ambiguity (Head, 2022).

As an illustration, climate variability has ushered in significant uncertainties in water policy. These challenges include ensuring democratic governance during droughts and floods, as well as addressing water availability, quality, and related disputes (Milhorance et al., 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic prompted food system stakeholders globally to reconfigure their strategies, focusing on food security and support for the most vulnerable (Béné, 2020). Additionally, the rapid transformation of tropical forest landscapes, driven by intense land use change and climate change, necessitates enhanced alignment between global value chains, scientific insights, and local knowledge in policy formulation and implementation. These dynamic and rapidly evolving processes have challenged policy actors to adapt their approaches, fostering new modes of operation, enhanced flexibility, and novel forms of collaboration.

Consequently, the notion of "wicked" or intractable policy problems, first introduced in the 1970s by Rittel and Webber, has resurfaced. Their 1973 paper critiqued the tendency to address broad societal problems with scientific data analysis or simplistic ideology. They contended that "wicked" social problems could not be resolved solely through technical expertise; rather, they necessitated participatory engagement that acknowledged the diverse values inherent in a pluralist society (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Recent literature on these issues spans various concepts, from adaptive governance (Folke et al., 2010; Pahl-Wostl, 2009) to crisis management (Ansell et al., 2016), coping strategies (Head, 2022), policy resilience and robustness (Capano & Woo, 2017), and thermostatic institutions (Auld et al., 2021).

Specifically, in environmental governance, the adaptive governance concept advocates for polycentric, local-level decision-making (Folke et al., 2005). This notion underscores iterative changes, leveraging on-the-ground 'learning by doing' (Brunner, 2010). Central to this is institutional flexibility, which supports environmental monitoring and adaptable learning to respond to shifts. Additionally, trust and social networks emerge as vital in addressing rapid changes (Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2004; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007). While these studies often focus on community institutions and apolitical local experimentation spreading through organized networks (Brunner, 2010) Cleaver and Whaley (2018) offer a holistic view on institutions, which encompasses both formal rules and power dynamics.

Other analysts also recognize the importance of flexible policy designs. Concepts like policy resilience and robustness highlight an institution's capacity to evolve and sustain functionality amidst uncertainty (Capano & Woo, 2017; Howlett & Ramesh, 2022). Such studies suggest policies can adjust without overhauling institutions or overarching directives (Cashore & Howlett, 2007). However, these studies often prioritize governance efficiency, aiming for a balance between policy rigidity and adaptability, sidelining political aspects (Sørensen & Ansell, 2021). In contrast, other authors highlight policy instruments may emerge as a dynamic sociopolitical process in which people experiment with new routines to address challenges, solve problems, or perform their everyday activities (Cleaver, 2012; Mayaux et al., 2022). Moreover, the literature on policy mix and policy integration has frequently addressed complex and cross-sectorial policy issues. While these fields have seen significant theoretical advancements, their practical application has been limited to date (Trein et al., 2020).

Despite their theoretical differences, these studies often emphasize the need for institutions that balance long-term goals with immediate responses to fast-paced changes. Furthermore, they suggest that mere scientific or technical solutions are insufficient, as core value differences demand political discourse and deliberation.

Nevertheless, this literature has been insufficiently developed in regions marked by pronounced power imbalances, political instability, and social inequities, notably in parts of the Global South. In these contexts, some proposed policy interventions may inadvertently deepen conflicts and inequalities. For example, while digital innovation in agriculture presents opportunities for climate adaptation and sustainable transitions, ill-conceived policy integration can exacerbate digital divides, fuel competition between large-scale agribusinesses and family-run farms, and heighten the exploitation of natural resources (Bronson & Knezevic, 2019; Bühler et al., 2022).

Therefore, this workshop addresses the challenge highlighted in policy literature of navigating overlapping crises, uncertainty, and adaptability, especially in contexts characterized by social inequality and power imbalances.

Research questions guiding this workshop include:

1.       How are events like climate change, COVID-19, food and environmental crises shaping new frontiers in policy research? Specifically, how can policy research theories and methods more effectively integrate uncertainty and complexity?

2.       How can the literature on "wicked problems" more effectively integrate power dynamics, socio-economic disparities, coalition politics, and related narratives? How could this literature better inform governance models and regulatory frameworks?

3.       How can policy design and implementation enhance adaptability while acknowledging the existing institutional settings, power imbalances, and deeply rooted knowledge and values? Additionally, what opportunities and constraints exist for policy learning in these contexts?

4.       What insights can policymakers and policy research derive from resilience strategies and political reconfigurations following crises?

We invite submissions based on policy process theories and constructivist approaches, with a particular interest in expanding these theoretical boundaries to encompass contexts in the Global South. We welcome explorations of various facets, including coalition politics and narratives, institutional design and change, policy implementation and instruments, the interplay between policy and science, and the perspectives on governance and stewardship of traditional communities. Our workshop emphasizes studies that explore theorical aspects, case-based policy processes and comparative analyses. It also seeks to bridge academic research with practical application.

Contributions and publication:

The Public Policy and Rural Development Network in Latin America and the Caribbean (Red PP-AL) will co-chair this workshop. We strongly encourage members of this network to submit papers, and support might be available to facilitate their in-person attendance. While we expect participation from Latin American countries, members of the wider international IPPA community and their research contributions are warmly welcomed.

The workshop will be guided by a publication project for a special edition. Thus, the selection of papers will prioritize diversity in contexts and approaches. The workshop's structure aims to foster dialogue and ensure coherence among the contributions.

References:

Ansell, C., Boin, A., & Kuipers, S. (2016). Institutional crisis and the policy agenda. Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting, 415–432.

Auld, G., Bernstein, S., Cashore, B., & Levin, K. (2021). Managing pandemics as super wicked problems: Lessons from, and for, COVID-19 and the climate crisis. Policy Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09442-2

Bronson, K., & Knezevic, I. (2019). The Digital Divide and How It Matters for Canadian Food System Equity. Canadian Journal of Communication, 44(2), PP-63-PP-68. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2019v44n2a3489

Bühler, È. A., Gautreau, P., & Lúcio de Oliveira, V. (2022). La revanche de l’agrobusiness brésilien. Études rurales, 209, Artigo 209. https://doi.org/10.4000/etudesrurales.29568

Capano, G., & Woo, J. J. (2017). Resilience and robustness in policy design: A critical appraisal. Policy Sci, 29.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420

Head, B. W. (2022). Coping with wicked problems in policy design. Em Research Handbook of Policy Design (p. 155–175). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/display/edcoll/9781839106590/9781839106590.00018.xml

Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0

Milhorance, C., Lazarotto de Andrade, M., Le Coq, J.-F., & Sabourin, E. (2022). Democratic public action in times of crises: Examining the resilience of Brazil’s food and water policies.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Trein, P., Biesbroek, R., Bolognesi, T., Cejudo, G. M., Duffy, R., Hustedt, T., & Meyer, I. (2020). Policy Coordination and Integration: A Research Agenda: Policy Coordination and Integration: A Research Agenda. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13180

Weible, C. M., Nohrstedt, D., Cairney, P., Carter, D. P., Crow, D. A., Durnová, A. P., Heikkila, T., Ingold, K., McConnell, A., & Stone, D. (2020). COVID-19 and the policy sciences: Initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sciences, 53(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09381-4

This workshop addresses the challenge highlighted in policy literature of navigating overlapping crises, uncertainty, and adaptability, especially in contexts characterized by social inequality and power imbalances.

Research questions guiding this workshop include:

1.       How are events like climate change, COVID-19, food and environmental crises shaping new frontiers in policy research? Specifically, how can policy research theories and methods more effectively integrate uncertainty and complexity?

2.       How can the literature on "wicked problems" more effectively integrate power dynamics, socio-economic disparities, coalition politics, and related narratives? How could this literature better inform governance models and regulatory frameworks?

3.       How can policy design and implementation enhance adaptability while acknowledging the existing institutional settings, power imbalances, and deeply rooted knowledge and values? Additionally, what opportunities and constraints exist for policy learning in these contexts?

4.       What insights can policymakers and policy research derive from resilience strategies and political reconfigurations following crises?

We invite submissions based on policy process theories and constructivist approaches, with a particular interest in expanding these theoretical boundaries to encompass contexts in the Global South. We welcome explorations of various facets, including coalition politics and narratives, institutional design and change, policy implementation and instruments, the interplay between policy and science, and the perspectives on governance and stewardship of traditional communities. Our workshop emphasizes studies that explore theorical aspects, case-based policy processes and comparative analyses. It also seeks to bridge academic research with practical application.

The Public Policy and Rural Development Network in Latin America and the Caribbean (Red PP-AL) will co-chair this workshop. Members of the wider international IPPA community are warmly invited. The workshop is structured to foster dialogue and ensure coherence among contributions, guided by a publication project for a special edition.

The intersection of challenges like climate change, COVID-19, and food shortages highlights challenges to policy sciences (Weible et al., 2020). Governing these complex issues is challenging as many institutions prioritize short-term views, often missing the evolving nature of these problems, further complicated by disputed knowledge and differing values (Head, 2022). In this context, climate variability has introduced uncertainties in water policy, including democratic governance during droughts and floods, and issues of water availability, quality, and disputes. The COVID-19 pandemic led global food systems’ stakeholders to prioritize food security and aid for the vulnerable. The swift change in tropical forest landscapes, due to intense land use and climate effects, demands better coordination between global value chains, scientific understanding, and local insights. This evolving landscape pushes policy actors to innovate, adopt flexible strategies, and collaborate in new ways.

The term "wicked" problems, introduced by Rittel and Webber in the 1970s, suggests that technical solutions alone are insufficient for complex societal issues. Instead, they need participatory approaches considering diverse societal values. Contemporary policy debates, ranging from adaptive governance and coping strategies to thermostatic institutions and policy resilience (Folke et al., 2010; Ansell et al., 2016; Capano & Woo, 2017), emphasize the importance of political dialogue over purely technical solutions.

Nevertheless, this literature has been insufficiently developed in regions with pronounced power imbalances, political instability, and social inequities, notably in parts of the Global South. In such contexts, certain policy measures might exacerbate conflicts and inequalities. For instance, while digital advancements in agriculture offer climate adaptation opportunities, poorly integrated policies can intensify digital divides, pit large agribusinesses against family farms, and increase natural resource exploitation (Bühler et al., 2022). This workshop tackles the challenge of navigating overlapping crises and adaptability in contexts marked by social inequality and power imbalances, as highlighted in policy literature.

Carolina Milhorance is a political science researcher holding a PhD from both the University of Paris-Saclay and the University of Brasilia. Currently affiliated with CIRAD and the PP-AL Network, she has been involved in numerous research and consultancy projects throughout Latin America, Southern Africa, and West Africa. At present, she co-leads the project “Restoration of soils and multifunctionality of degraded forest landscapes in Côte d'Ivoire” (Terri4Sol/ FFEM/ CIRAD/ Minader). Drawing from political sociology and comprehensive field research, her studies center on climate policy, environmental governance and conflicts, food and nutritional security, south-south cooperation, policy transfer and diffusion, as well as cross-sectoral policy issues. Carolina has published over 40 scientific articles and 20 book chapters, and wrote the book "New Geographies of Global Policy-Making: South-South Networks and Rural Development Strategies" (Routledge). This work earned her the Early Research Career Award from IPPA.

Andrea Lenschow has been a Full Professor of Political Science at the University of Osnabrück since 2003 and became the Vice President of the University in 2022. She earned her PhD from New York University and held postdoctoral positions at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the European University Institute in Florence, and Paris Lodron University in Salzburg. Her research focuses on environmental policy and governance within the European Union, as well as global commodity flows. She has published widely in prestigious university presses and top-tier journals.

Jean-François Le Coq is a political economy researcher with a PhD from AgroParisTech (1992) and an HDR in ecological economics from the University of Toulouse Jean-Jaurès (2017). Currently at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and CIRAD, his research delves into the design, implementation, and evaluation of public policies for sustainable development in rural areas. With over 16 years of experience in Latin America, he has coordinated the "Public Policy and Rural Development in Latin America" network (PP-AL). He also led the ANR ARTIMIX project, which focuses on coordinating policy mixes across different scales and sectors to tackle adaptation challenges in vulnerable tropical agricultural landscapes. Additionally, he oversaw the policy component for Latin America of the CGIAR "Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security" (CCAFS) program. Jean-François has contributed to 10 books or special issue editorials and has published 51 scientific papers.