LIST OF WORKSHOPS

General objectives and Research questions This workshop aims to advance the theoretical and empirical understanding of policy advisory systems (PAS), by taking on the agenda of so-called ‘third wave’ PAS studies and expanding it to focus on the role of PAS in explaining policymaking processes and the impact of current epistemic transformations on advisory structures and dynamics. Some question of interest for the workshop are: -How PAS governance arrangements affect the quality and content of advice? -How can the PAS framework contribute to better understand policy processes and outcomes? Can the PAS theory be advanced through hybridization with existing policy process theories? -How have changes in the epistemic context of PAS brought by the AI revolution and the crisis of expertise have affected their configuration and workings? Context and state of the art From the seminal work of Halligan (1995), many policy scholars have paid attention in the subsequent decades to how the interactions of actors involved in the production, translation and consumption of policy and politically relevant knowledge flows into policymaking activities and shapes contemporary governance (Hussain et al., 2024) (Capano et al., 2025; OECD, 2017). PAS scholarship has also been self-reflective about its own development, distinguishing between several ‘waves’ of studies (Craft & Howlett, 2012; Craft & Wilder, 2017; Migone & Howlett, 2025). The first wave focused on the configuration of PAS and the dynamics therein, where policy influence was considered a function of the closeness between knowledge producers and consumers and the ability of producers to adapt their advice to the policy preferences of decision makers. In this respect, these studies were interested in the role of specific actors, particularly the public bureaucracy, and how its traditional advisory role and centrality in PAS was undermined by the externalisation of advice following public management reforms and politicisation trends (Craft & Wilder, 2017). Later, a second ‘second wave’ of PAS studies (Craft & Wilder, 2017) advocated for a holistic analysis of PAS, focusing on the variation between policy subsystems and on the impact of contextual and internal factors on the nature and quality of advice (Migone and Howlett, 2025). This second generation was also interested in externalisation and politicisation processes, with studies in non-Westminster countries providing a more nuanced view of these phenomena (Bakir, 2023; Fobé et al., 2018; Howlett, 2019; Hustedt, 2019; Marchevska, 2025; Pattyn et al., 2022). More recently, a ‘third wave’ of PAS studies has emerged (Howlett et al., 2025; Migone & Howlett, 2025). In addition to the previous interests, this new set of studies would emphasise PAS management processes and how they impact the quality of advice. This workshop aims to stimulate scholars interested in the consolidation and advancement of PAS theory in two main ways. First, by reflecting on the topics on which the subsequent waves have focused (the evolution in the composition of PAS and their dynamics, the conditions affecting the production of advice, its content and utilisation, the influence on these aspects of sectoral or macropolitical contexts) or expanding the knowledge on PAS towards new geographic areas or levels of government (mainly regional or local). In addition, this workshop would like to serve as a platform to advance PAS theory along two avenues less explored in the previous literature. One is the impact of contemporary transformations in the epistemic context of policy and political advice. First, we are still uncertain about the impact on political and policy advice of the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) in the daily work of public and private organisations (Criado et al., 2025): Will AI-based advice bring a more rational policymaking process? And how will it affect the configurations of PAS (for instance, will the development of AI capacities within the public administration reinforce its advisory position vis à vis external actors? Or, in contrast, will AI-powered knowledge increase the advisory influence of external actors and, in particular, those technological companies which control the development of these tools? Another contemporary transformation in the epistemic context that affects PAS concerns the erosion of the legitimacy of traditional expertise (Reed & Reed, 2023). The basic issue here is how the questioning of expert knowledge and the advocacy for ‘alternative’ forms of knowledge resting on legitimacy sources other than traditional scientific-technical legitimacy (local knowledge, citizen knowledge) or even evidence-free knowledge (Brans & Blum, 2024) will affect the workings and configuration of PAS. A second avenue of development refers to the connection between PAS and the policy process and its outcomes. We contend that this connection is still underexplored and undertheorized, since, as our review has demonstrated, the literature has been much more interested in the ‘dependent variable’ character of PAS. How PAS dynamics and configuration influence policy change and innovation, agenda setting, policy formulation, or implementation? These questions open the possibility of new theoretical developments in PAS that exploit the evident synergies with existing theories of the policy process. For instance, the focus on the subsystem dimension of PAS advocated by some authors (Craft & Wilder, 2017) immediately brings to the forefront the role that PAS could play in maintaining or subverting policy monopolies or directing policy attention (Jones & Baumgartner, 2005), making possible or hindering policy learning or more substantive change (Sabatier & Weible, 2007) or affecting the content of the problem or policy streams in agenda setting processes (Kingdon, 1995). These synergies can go in both directions, with PAS theory being complemented by elements from other policy process theories or, alternatively, theories being enriched by incorporating the PAS conceptual apparatus. PapersThe workshop will welcome theoretical and empirical contributions (comparative or case studies) aiming to consolidate the existing knowledge or to push forward the frontiers of the PAS literature, particularly papers analysing: a) The evolution of PAS in geographical or sectoral areas where such a characterisation is still missing. b) How PAS management or governance structures influence the quality and content of policy advice. c) The impact of AI on policy advice and the work of PAS. d) How the crisis of (traditional) expertise has affected the dynamics of policy advisory and the configuration of PAS. e) Empirical analysis of the impact of PAS on the policy process (policy change, agenda setting, policy formulation, or implementation). f) Theoretical papers exploring the synergies between PAS and policy process theories. AgendaThe workshop will adopt a hybrid format to maximise the opportunities for participation and, at the same time, to allow onsite participants to benefit from the networking opportunities of the workshop social agenda and, in general, of the conference. The workshop sessions will be organised around the main topics mentioned above. At the end of the workshop, the coordinators and the participants will evaluate the possibility of producing a collective publication (edited volume or special issue). References Bakir, C. (2023). The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes. Policy and Society, 42(3), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad013 Capano, G., Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (Eds.). (2025). The Routledge Handbook of Policy Advisory Systems. Routledge. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X12000049 Craft, J., & Wilder, M. (2017). Catching a Second Wave: Context and Compatibility in Advisory System Dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12133 Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazán, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and public administration: Understanding actors, governance, and policy from micro, meso, and macro perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 40(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241272921 Fobé, E., Pattyn, V., Brans, M., & Aubin, D. (2018). Policy Analytical Practice Investigated: Exploring Sectoral Patterns in Use of Policy Analytical Techniques. In X. Wu, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Policy Capacity and Governance: Assessing Governmental Competences and Capabilities in Theory and Practice (pp. 179–202). Palgrave Macmillan. Halligan, J. (1995). Policy Advice and the Public Service. In B. G. Peters & D. J. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a Changing Environment (pp. 138–172). Canadian Centre for Management Development/McGill-Queen’s University Press. Howlett, M. (2019). Comparing policy advisory systems beyond the OECD: models, dynamics and the second-generation research agenda. Policy Studies, 40(3–4), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1557626 Howlett, M., Galanti, M. T., Migone, A., & Vicentini, G. (2025). Management and quality : third-generation research into policy advisory systems. 00(00). Hussain, F., Tsang, D., & Rafique, Z. (2024). Policy advisory systems and public policy making : Bibliometric analysis , knowledge mapping , operationalization , and future research agenda. Review of Policy Research, 41, 713–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12564 Hustedt, T. (2019). Studying policy advisory systems: beyond the Westminster. Policy Studies, 40(3–4), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1557627 Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The Politics of Attention. The University of Chicago Press. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (2nd ed.). Longman. Marchevska, D. (2025). Comparing Beyond ( Just ) the State ? Examining Patterns of Policy Advice Externalization Across Policy Domains. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70082 Migone, A., & Howlett, M. (2025). Kicked cans and poison pills: third generation policy advisory system studies and the management of quality political advice. Policy and Society, 00(00), 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puaf002 OECD. (2017). Policy Advisory Systems: Supporting Good Governance and Sound Public Decision Making. OECD. Pattyn, V., Blum, S., Fobé, E., Pekar-Milicevic, M., & Brans, M. (2022). Academic policy advice in consensus-seeking countries: the cases of Belgium and Germany. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852319878780 Reed, C., & Reed, M. (2023). Enough of Experts: Expert Authority in Crisis. De Gruyter. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed., pp. 189–220). Westview Press.

This workshop seeks to create a multidisciplinary and internationally connected space for rethinking policymaking processes through decolonial, feminist, postcolonial, and critical political economy perspectives rooted in the experiences and epistemologies of the Global South. It aims to foster dialogue across diverse theoretical traditions and empirical contexts while challenging the universalization of Eurocentric frameworks in public policy analysis. The workshop is grounded in the understanding that contemporary governance systems in many postcolonial societies continue to reflect institutional continuities inherited from colonial administrations, while simultaneously being reshaped by neoliberal reforms, globalization, extractivism, financial dependency, digital transformation, and transnational governance arrangements. These processes produce hybrid and contested policymaking environments in which formal institutions coexist with informal practices, traditional authorities, social movements, community-based knowledge systems, and multiple forms of resistance. At the same time, feminist and decolonial scholarship has increasingly demonstrated how policymaking is also structured by patriarchal rationalities, racialized exclusions, epistemic hierarchies, and unequal distributions of legitimacy and authority. Public policies are therefore understood not as neutral or merely technical instruments, but as relational, affective, and political processes through which knowledge, power, values, and social hierarchies are constantly negotiated and reproduced. The workshop is guided by the following central research question: How can decolonial, feminist, postcolonial, and critical political economy approaches help us rethink policymaking processes in the Global South, particularly in contexts marked by historical inequalities, epistemic hierarchies, patriarchal governance structures, and contested forms of legitimacy? More specifically, the workshop seeks to explore: How colonial and patriarchal rationalities continue to shape governance systems, institutional arrangements, and policy imaginaries; How epistemic hierarchies define what counts as legitimate policy knowledge, evidence, and expertise; How inequalities are reproduced through political economy structures, state practices, and policy regimes; How actors across multiple scales negotiate, resist, and transform dominant governance arrangements; How alternative forms of policymaking grounded in care, reciprocity, multiactoriality, and epistemic plurality may contribute to more just and democratic futures. The scientific relevance of the workshop lies in its ambition to contribute to the ongoing epistemic transformation of policy studies. Although policy process research has developed influential frameworks such as multiple streams, punctuated equilibrium, advocacy coalitions, and governance network analysis, these approaches frequently assume institutional conditions characteristic of the Global North. In contrast, policymaking in postcolonial societies often unfolds within unstable, unequal, and historically layered contexts marked by colonial continuities, democratic fragilities, and asymmetrical relations of power. This context demands theoretical and methodological innovation. Existing frameworks must be interrogated, adapted, and expanded to account for the hybridity, fluidity, and multidimensionality of governance in the Global South. By centering experiences, theories, and methodological innovations emerging from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and other postcolonial contexts, the workshop contributes to broader debates on epistemic justice, feminist governance, sustainability transitions, democratic transformation, and decolonial public policy analysis. Rather than treating decolonial and feminist perspectives as complementary additions to mainstream policy theories, the workshop positions them as foundational lenses capable of rethinking the ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions of policy scholarship itself. GUIDING AXES The workshop will be organized around six interconnected thematic sessions: 1. Political Economy of Inequality and Capture This session examines how coloniality, capitalism, neoliberal restructuring, and elite capture shape policymaking processes and reproduce structural inequalities across postcolonial societies. Contributions may explore state-market relations, extractivism, austerity, donor dependency, financialization, corruption, or the role of transnational actors in governance. 2. Knowledge Production through Feminist Policymaking This axis focuses on the politics of expertise, evidence, and epistemic authority in policy processes. It explores how feminist and decolonial approaches challenge dominant forms of knowledge production while foregrounding situated knowledge, care, embodiment, relationality, and alternative methodological practices. 3. Impacts of Patriarchal Rationality on Citizens This session investigates how patriarchal and colonial rationalities shape policy designs, institutional practices, and everyday experiences of citizenship. Contributions may address gendered governance, racialized exclusions, social reproduction, affective dimensions of policy, violence, moral regulation, and unequal distributions of rights and recognition. 4. State Reconfiguration across Multiple Borders This axis explores how states are being transformed through globalization, migration, regional integration, geopolitical realignments, digital governance, and transnational policy flows. Particular attention will be given to hybrid institutional arrangements and the coexistence of local, Indigenous, national, and global governance rationalities. 5. Policy Crisis in Postcolonial Regimes This session examines institutional crises, democratic erosion, authoritarian resurgence, legitimacy disputes, and governance instability in postcolonial contexts. Contributions may analyze how crises expose the contradictions and fragilities of inherited institutional structures while opening spaces for resistance, reform, or reactionary politics. 6. Transitions and Rationality in Sustainable Futures This final axis focuses on competing imaginaries of development, sustainability, and social transformation. It invites reflections on ecological transitions, solidarity economies, cooperative futures, climate governance, Indigenous alternatives, and pluriversal approaches to policymaking beyond dominant technocratic paradigms.

To understand public policy and the policy process, many authors from different perspectives have drawn on the metaphor of dramaturgy. Story of the Policy Field (Peters & Zittoun, 2026) documents how dramaturgy has collectively inspired the field of policy studies. Scholars have mobilized concepts such as drama, storyline, narrative, actors, agents, roles, spectacle, script, performance, rules, and staging. This inspiration began early, with Kenneth Burke, who analyzed the vote on a law proposal as an “act” and studied the rhetorical strategies used by members of parliament to persuade others (Burke 1975). Cobb and Elder (1973) used dramaturgical metaphors to describe agenda-setting as a staged drama (Cobb and Elder 1972). Merelman explored the “dramatic nature of ideology,” while Edelman famously evoked the “political spectacle” ((Merelman 1969; Edelman 1985)). The success of dramaturgical metaphors continued to shape policy studies after the 1980s, through two main approaches. Joseph Gusfield was among the first to analyze the policy process through a dramaturgical lens, identifying two levels of social life: one in which society is spoken about and defined, and another consisting of social activities themselves ((Gusfield 1981, 18). This dual approach gave rise to two major traditions. The first tradition views public policy as a drama—through the stories it conveys and the frames it produces—which affect a broader audience, the public. Klapp ((Klapp 2017)1962) suggested that policy could be read as a theatrical monologue, with dramaturgy helping us to interpret “heroes, villains, and fools.” Edelman developed this idea, showing how politicians construct problems to justify solutions and legitimize themselves as “incredible leaders.” (Edelman 1988) For Gusfield, policy discourse appears as a fictional or illusory narrative in which society is presented as definable, predictable, and under government control (Gusfield 1989). Following Goffman, public policy is thus understood through its capacity to frame meaning for its audience. These perspectives inspired important concepts such as Deborah Stone’s “causal stories,” Emery Roe’s “narratives,” Frank Fischer’s Framing Public Policy, Maarten Hajer’s “policy drama,” the “narrative policy framework” (Jones), and Zittoun’s “policy statement.” and the narrative policy framework belong to this tradition, with its structured approach to explore narrative form through categories and plots (Fischer 2003; Stone 1989; Hajer and Oomen 2025; Jones and McBeth 2010; Zittoun 2014; Kuenzler et al. 2025) In this perspective, public policy is seen as a drama/story/narrative that not only defines the society where problems are solved and order restored, but also legitimizes certain actors or coalitions that intervene to ‘solve’ the problem. The second tradition considers the policy process itself as a performance, analyzing policymakers as actors playing roles, and their interactions as a succession of staged scenes. Inspired by Goffman’s analysis of everyday life and Durkheim’s notion of ritual, this approach emphasizes the role as a “pre-established model of action developed during a performance,” and the “social façade” as a “collective representation” of the role—even when individuals distance themselves from it (Goffman 1990). From this micro-perspective, policymaking can be studied as a plurality of scenes in which actors display their skills and adapt their roles to different contexts. While Goffman did not study policy processes directly, he examined meetings and conferences, highlighting their performative dimensions (Goffman 1981). Edelman also depicted politicians as actors performing in spectacles (Edelman 1998). More recently, Jeffrey Alexander applied dramaturgy to presidential elections; Hajer spoke of “deliberative dramaturgy,” where the process sets its own rules(Alexander 2010); and Hendriks emphasized the role of media in shaping political performance (Hendriks et al. 2016). This tradition ties in with the recent work on rituals, ritualistic visual narratives and the vast array of studies on emotions and policy processes (Baele and Balzacq 2022; Durnová 2019; Pierce 2021; Salgó 2017). Yet, one key enigma concerns the relationship between these two dimensions. Goffman addressed it through his concept of framing, which emerges from individual interactions and evolves into collective frames guiding behavior (Goffman 1974). Edelman, by contrast, used the metaphors of “frontstage” and “backstage.” On the frontstage, politicians and policymakers perform public policy as an illusion—an ordered and predictable society where problems are solved. In the backstage, however, they negotiate, bargain, and tinker, far from the staged drama. This opposition inspired many studies, but it also creates difficulties: it risks reducing politicians to mere illusionists or schemers, underestimating that the backstage itself is also a performance. Moreover, it reinforces a division between the symbolic and instrumental dimensions of policy, thereby narrowing our understanding. Furthermore, the emotional embeddedness of this relationship deserves closer attention to better understand how power, values, and beliefs interact in shaping the performance and influencing its interpretation. The emerging concept of “political emotions”(Durnova, Hilmar et al. 2025) strengthens this interpretive lens by foregrounding the staging of emotions and their reception, thereby offering an analytical framework to clarify how emotions signify and operate within these performances. In this workshop, we propose to revisit the relationship between these dramaturgical perspectives. Rather than separating public policy as narrative drama from political communication as performance, or opposing the hidden backstage to the public frontstage, we aim to interrogate their entanglement. How can we simultaneously account for the multiple interactions of policymakers as a drama performance and the symbolic effects of public policy as drama? How can we extend the metaphor not only to the public arena but also to hidden spaces of discussion, including the fragmented and complex bureaucracy? To explore this issue, we suggest four possible pathways: The Metadrama, or the “drama of drama-making.” Here policymaking is seen as a “behind-the-scenes” performance where actors script the public policy drama. Benford and Hunt’s notion of “scripting” describes “the development of a set of directions that define the scene, identify actors, and outline expected behavior (…) while framing provides actable ideas, scripting moves these ideas one step closer to enactment” ((Benford and Hunt 1992, 38). The question is whether this metaphor helps us to describe policymaking more precisely—capturing both the roles and scenes in which actors interact, and the unexpected storylines of policy drama-making. Can we, for example, analyze how the symbolic dimension of policy drama is already being shaped during the writing of the script?The Policy Dramaturgical Loop. This refers to the complex relationship between public policy as a dramatic story and government performance as both author and actor. In dramaturgy, a loop occurs when a drama reflects on itself, when a performance refers to itself as performance. Trump provides a caricatured example: in commenting on his executive orders, he not only presented policies but also performed his own role as president and showman. Edelman also pointed to this complex relationship between the leader as both writer of the script and performer of the drama.Dramaturgies of change. If we analyse policy in terms of its (implicit) dramaturgy we may also see where and why certain policy processes fail. Alternatively, we can think of new ways of constructing policy and politics that may overcome faulty routines. Taking deliberative policy analysis a step further we might think of new ways of weaving policy making, knowledge development and citizen engagement in new dramaturgies. The Policy Tragedy. This highlights the tension between policy as script and policy as performance. Public policy defines roles, expectations, and outcomes, yet its implementation is always a specific interpretation that never perfectly corresponds to the original script. If policy can be read as a drama promising to solve problems and restore order, its enactment is a performance in which actors reinterpret roles and test expectations. The “policy tragedy” thus interrogates policy both as a fictional dramaturgy and as a messy, interpretive performance. It also opens the inquiry toward the emotional dimensions that are involved in this process.These four pathways are not exclusive; rather, they open new perspectives on the relationship between public policy as drama and the policy process as dramaturgy.

Workshop Format Preferred format: hybrid Workshop Objectives: The objective of our workshop is to bring together researchers working on conflict and collaboration as entangled in the context of environmental governance from different theoretical and methodological perspectives. We intend to establish a theoretical dialogue around Theories of the Policy Process and their different approaches to conflict analysis - we think in particular of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Ecology of Games, Policy Narratives and Policy Networks. We are especially interested in engaging with scholars that bring some of these theories together or put them in dialogue with other theories including Political Theorists of conflict (such as Chantal Mouffe) and classical works on power, to engage in a discussion on the theoretical underpinnings of empirical analyses of policy and governance processes and how they reveal more general patterns of relevance for democratic functioning. We are also open to support discussions on what other theoretical approaches, such as Peace and War Studies, Sustainability Studies, etc. can bring to the conceptualization of conflict and collaboration as entangled issues. Thus, our workshop seeks to develop a strong theoretical component, supported by empirical cases and methodological innovations. Indeed, when it comes to methodologies, we are particularly interested in mix-methods approaches as well as approaches that engage with unconventional methods such as arts-based methods, games, participatory modelling or co-production methods, besides more traditional social-science methods such as statistical analysis, network analysis, interviews and ethnographies. A final important component of our workshop will be reflexivity. Indeed, we would like to engage in discussions about the difficulties, challenges and possible opportunities in studying conflicts of different types. Concretely, we imagine that workshop participants will have a developed draft of their papers, so that we can comment on each others’ papers to cross-fertilize the differences in our theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. In coming together, we will also be discussing an appropriate venue to publish our work, either as an edited book or a special issue in journals such as Policy Studies Journal or Environmental Policy and Governance focusing on Horizontal Conflicts in Environmental Governance. Key to that objective will be the common development of a piece on current theoretical and methodological frontiers in the context of conflict and collaboration in environmental governance, for which the workshop would help us harness relevant ideas. Research Questions: 1) What are the variables that allow for healthy coexistence of conflict and collaboration in participatory environmental governance? 2) How to conceptualize conflict in cases in which power endowments are horizontal? 3) How are policy narratives developed and transformed in contexts of conflict intensification? 4) How do policy networks of conflict structure collaboration patterns in environmental governance? 5) Which methods allow for studying conflicts without exacerbating polarization or compromising trust in research? 6) Which methods are better suited to access and produce data on conflicts that is difficult to obtain through traditional methods? Hypotheses: H1: Conflict and collaboration can coexist in environmental governance systems. H2: Conflict can catalyze collaboration, and vice versa. H3: Conflicts can be disentangled into networks of issues. H4: Different methodological approaches are needed to have a holistic understanding of the complexity of conflict. H5: Policy narratives in contexts of horizontal conflicts strongly build on processes of interpersonal affective conflict. Expected Impact on Public Policy Research Our proposed workshop aims to build theory regarding the interconnected roles of conflict and collaboration in fostering desirable outcomes from public policy, through the synthesis of a large number of empirical cases and diverse methodological approaches. Expected Impact on Practice Our proposed session aims to broaden our understanding of the interactions between conflict and collaboration in environmental governance systems. Specifically, we hope to provide learnings related to transforming conflict into productive collaboration, or pathways to move forward amidst dissensus and avoid polarization. We hope to impact and inform conflict management practices in ways that help leverage conflict into a productive dynamic within environmental governance processes.

Policy studies have long acknowledged that policymaking in one jurisdiction is influenced by policymaking in others. Due to broader forces such as industrialization and globalization, policies were hypothesized to converge into a common mould (Bennett, 1991; Holzinger & Knill, 2005). These forces prompt policymakers – whether by choice, by chance, or by coercion – to adopt practices from elsewhere (both domestic and international) in order to introduce localized policy reforms and innovations. However, the extent to which policies have actually converged or diverged remains largely inconclusive (Plümper & Schneider, 2009), leaving unanswered the question of whether these extra-jurisdictional sources of change and innovation significantly affect the policy status quo. In other words, the extent to which the spread of policies and practices matters for the comparability of policymaking over time continues to represent a blind spot in policy studies. This blind spot is not a result of scholarly disinterest; rather, the phenomena of different jurisdictions learning from and emulating each other, competing with one another and striving to be the first or early adopters of innovations and groundbreaking changes have been dissimilarly approached (Lan & Wayenberg, 2024; Shipan & Volden, 2008). Terms such as policy diffusion, policy transfer, policy mobility and policy circulation, have emerged to capture different elements of these underlying dynamic processes, each remaining true to specific epistemological claims (de Oliveira, 2021). These concepts differ largely on their assumptions of agency and structure and entail specific expectations towards convergence and divergence of public policy. Over the past decade, some scholars have explicitly hypothesized increasing similarity among jurisdictions due to learning, competition or other mechanisms of policy diffusion in various policy areas like social policy (Howlett, Ramesh & Saguin 2018) and environmental policy (Simons & Voß, 2018). Others have empirically nuanced the impact of diffusion (Egger et al., 2021; Holzinger & Sommerer, 2011) or have normatively challenged it by arguing that policies are ultimately translated (Stone 2012) and assembled (Prince 2010) into objects specific to each context. Overall, however, theoretical reflection and empirical evidence on the interrelation between policy diffusion, convergence and divergence in the field of policy studies remain limited to date. This workshop focuses on advancing scholarly research around the interrelated concepts of policy diffusion – including transfer, mobility, circulation, lesson-drawing and others. Key questions such as what is diffused, where is it being diffused, who influences the diffusion, and how is it being diffused (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000; de Oliveira et al., 2023) have been explored and debated in terms of their contradictions (Prince, 2010) and complementarities (de Oliveira, 2021; de Oliveira et al., 2023). We seek to build on these insights by explicitly examining their relationship with policy convergence and divergence (Knill 2013). In other words, is policymaking becoming more similar or more dissimilar through diffusion over time? Gaining a better understanding of how diffusion affects convergence and divergence will lay the groundwork for further theoretical development in policy studies. Synthesizing this interrelation by examining mechanisms of diffusion (such as learning or competition); specific sectors or networks of innovation (such as those evolving around AI); regionally delimited contexts (such as the Global North and South); particular system or regime conditions (including sudden crises or political turnarounds) as well as drivers of convergence and divergence in policy (such as communication and problem-solving) is pivotal to this aim. The insights derived from such analyses can then be further integrated into a shared framework to advance our understanding of policy convergence and divergence through diffusion (Cairney, 2013). By encouraging synthesis and super-synthesis of this diverse sub-field, the workshop thus responds to a long-lasting call of Ostrom (2006) of overcoming “our own heterogeneities…to achieve a better understanding of the world around us”. The workshop will bring together scholars from various policy-related disciplines and fields of expertise. It is envisioned to build upon the work that the chairs have already initiated in their previous panels during the ICPP7 Conference in Chiang Mai (i.e. T01P10: Putting Policy Diffusion (Further) in Process, chaired by Ellen Wayenberg and Youlang Zhang and T02P05: Policy Transfer in the Global South, respectively chaired by Kidjie Saguin et al.). References: Bennett, C. J. (1991). What is policy convergence and what causes it?. British journal of political science, 21(2), 215-233. Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: how do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies?. Policy studies journal, 41(1), 1-21. Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy‐making. Governance, 13(1), 5-23. Egger, C. M., Magni-Berton, R., Roché, S., & Aarts, K. (2021). I do it my way: Understanding policy variation in pandemic response across Europe. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 622069. Holzinger, K., & Knill, C. (2005). Causes and conditions of cross-national policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 775–796. Holzinger, K., & Sommerer, T. (2011). ‘Race to the bottom’or ‘Race to Brussels’? Environmental Competition in Europe. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(2), 315-339. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Saguin, K. (2018). Diffusion of CCTs from Latin America to Asia: the Philippine 4Ps case. Revista de Administração Pública, 52(2), 264-284. Knill, C. (Ed.). (2013). Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, causes and empirical findings. Routledge. Lan, L., & Wayenberg, E. (2024). Understanding the essence of digital government diffusion : a systematic literature review. In E-government digital frontiers : transforming public administration through technology (pp. 1-17). de Oliveira, O. P. (2021). A prelude to policy transfer research. In Handbook of policy transfer, diffusion and circulation (pp. 1-24). Edward Elgar Publishing. de Oliveira, O. P. (Ed.). (2021). Handbook of policy transfer, diffusion and circulation. Edward Elgar Publishing. de Oliveira, O. P., Romano, G. C., Volden, C., & Karch, A. (2023). Policy diffusion and innovation. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 230-261). Routledge. Ostrom, E. (2006). Converting threats into opportunities. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(1), 3-12. Plümper, T., & Schneider, C. J. (2009). The analysis of policy convergence, or: how to chase a black cat in a dark room. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(7), 990-1011. Prince, R. (2010). Policy transfer as policy assemblage: making policy for the creative industries in New Zealand. Environment and planning A, 42(1), 169-186. Simons, A., & Voß, J. P. (2018). The concept of instrument constituencies: Accounting for dynamics and practices of knowing governance. Policy and Society, 37(1), 14-35. Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American journal of political science, 52(4), 840-857. Stone, D. (2012). Transfer and translation of policy. Policy studies, 33(6), 483-499.

Policy from the People: Integrating Local Voices into Policy Processes in the Global South Thematic Area: Policy Process, Policy Making Background How can policy processes integrate the voices of those affected by a problem to drive policy change and effective implementation of developmental programmes? This is a crucial question that this panel seeks to address in the Global South. In recent decades, the Global South has witnessed a surge in policy reforms aimed at addressing development challenges, improving governance, and fostering inclusive growth. However, many of these policies have been designed and implemented through a top-down approach, sidelining the voices of those most affected by the policy problems. While most development policies are aimed at addressing community-level developmental challenges, the voices of the vulnerable communities that are affected by these problems are hardly represented in the policy processes. This disconnect between policy formulation and grassroots realities is reflected in poorly implemented policies that hardly address the needs of most members in the communities. As a result, there is resistance from the communities, leading to missed opportunities for sustainable development. The concept of participatory policymaking, which emphasizes the inclusion of local voices, indigenous knowledge, and community priorities, has gained traction globally. Yet in many parts of the Global South, structural barriers such as centralized governance, limited civic spaces, and socio-economic inequalities continue to hinder meaningful participation at grassroots levels. Moreover, the diversity of local contexts, encompassing cultural, linguistic, political, and ecological aspects, necessitates nuanced approaches to policy integration that extend beyond tokenistic consultations. This workshop seeks to explore how local voices can be systematically and effectively integrated into policy processes in the Global South. It will bring together scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and community representatives to share experiences, frameworks, and strategies that promote bottom-up policy development in the Global South. By examining case studies, participatory processes, and frameworks, the workshop aims to contribute to a more inclusive and responsive policy landscape in the Global South. To achieve this, the workshop proposes the following objectives 1. To critically examine the barriers to and enablers of participatory policymaking 2. To identify successful models and case studies of community-driven policy initiatives with equitable policy outcomes 3. To develop practical frameworks and tools for integrating local knowledge into formal policymaking 4. To foster cross-sectoral dialogue and partnerships for inclusive governance To achieve these objectives, several research questions are proposed 1. What are the structural and contextual factors that hinder or facilitate the integration of local voices into policy processes in the Global South? 2. How can participatory approaches be institutionalized within existing governance frameworks to ensure sustained community involvement? 3. What role do intermediaries such as civil society organisations, local leaders, and researchers play in bridging the gaps between communities and policymakers 4. How can digital technologies and innovative platforms enhance participatory policymaking while ensuring inclusivity and equity? Relevance of the Workshop The integration of local voices into policy processes presents an interdisciplinary perspective that can potentially contribute to both theoretical and applied knowledge in policy, development research, and governance. In this regard, the workshop will contribute to debates on democratic governance and citizens’ engagement through empirical insights into how participatory mechanisms function in diverse political contexts. By foregrounding local agency, the workshop will also challenge dominant development paradigms and promote alternative models rooted in community priorities and indigenous knowledge systems. An understanding of the cultural and social dynamics of participation is crucial for designing inclusive policies. In this sense, the workshop will explore how identity, power relations, and social norms influence policy engagement. It will further highlight the role of digital tools in facilitating participation, especially in marginalized communities, thereby contributing to the growing field of e-governance. With the Sustainable Development Goals just five years away from the 2030 mark, understanding how strong institutions that encompass both the supply and demand side stakeholders can contribute to better policy outcomes through inclusive partnerships, in line with the SDGs 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and 17 (Partnership for the Goals), is imperative. This underscores the need for integrated voices and collaborations in addressing critical development challenges at community levels. This workshop builds on existing research in participatory governance, policy co-creation, and inclusive development, hypothesizing that systematic integration of local voices into policy processes can lead to more contextually relevant, equitable, and sustainable outcomes in the Global South. The chairs seek to explore several interrelated hypotheses, particularly local knowledge and lived experiences, and how formally embedding these into policy design can improve implementation successes and community ownership. Apart from frontline policy makers, policy success is also reliant on other players, such as local leaders, civil society organisations, and researchers who are critical in translating grassroots priorities into policy language. The dynamics that digital technologies have brought into inclusive communication can help to bridge the gaps between policymakers and communities, thereby democratizing participation. Nevertheless, digital e-governance can also systematically exclude marginalized groups without deliberate inclusion strategies. These hypotheses are original in their emphasis on institutionalizing participation beyond consultation, focusing on co-creation and shared authority in policymaking to drive community development. unlike prior studies that often treat participation as symbolic, this workshop interrogates how power, structure, and process shape meaningful engagement. By testing these hypotheses through case studies, collaborative frameworks, and cross-sectoral dialogues, the workshop aims to advance the theory and practice of participatory policymaking and offers scalable models that improve responsiveness and legitimacy in governance across the Global South. The panel chairs are particularly interested in empirical papers that provide grounded insights into how local voices are integrated into policy processes across the Global South. They are also interested in methodological papers that propose innovative tools or approaches for capturing and analyzing local perspectives in policymaking. Priorities will be given to studies that draw on fieldwork, participatory research, case studies, or evaluations of policy interventions that demonstrate real-world dynamics of inclusion, exclusion, or impact. However, the panel also welcomes theoretical papers that critically engage with concepts such as participatory governance, co-production, and policy legitimacy, especially if they offer new frameworks or challenge dominant paradigms. Contributions that consider what works, why, and under what conditions, and that can potentially help to build a robust evidence base for inclusive policy design and implementation in diverse contexts are welcomed. Workshop structure and activities The workshop, which will be hybrid, will be structured to include presentations on participatory policymaking, policy co-creation, and community-led development, with case studies from the Global South: Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It will also include panel discussions that will feature researchers, civil society organizations who will discuss opportunities and challenges in participatory policymaking and how local voices can drive community development. The workshop will use a highly interactive and participatory format to foster deep engagement and collaborative learning. Sessions will include 1. Empirical paper presentations, followed by moderated discussions to draw out comparative insights 2. Roundtable dialogues with policymakers, researchers, and community representatives to explore practical applications 3. Breakout design labs where participants co-create frameworks for integrating local voices into policy 4. Case study showcases to highlight successful participatory models from the Global South 5. The final outcomes of the workshop will include a policy brief, a compendium of best practices, and a collaborative framework for inclusive policymaking. 6. Selected papers from the workshop will be considered for publication in a special issue of a peer-reviewed journal or an edited volume, subject to review. This will ensure that contributions not only inform practice but also advance scholarly discourse on participatory policy processes.

The policy process is characterized by policy actors who are humans, which means they have diverging interests, resources, beliefs, social identities, and perceptions. No matter if they want to put issues on the agenda, influence the formulation or decision of policy proposals, or are concerned with their implementation or evaluation, policy actors rarely will work alone, and often find themselves faced with opponents. At the same time, they are dependent on allies that support them in their objectives. Within policy processes, different theoretical perspectives explain the identification of allies and opponents and the establishment of ties or conflicts between them. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) finds their sources in belief systems (Satoh, Gronow, and Ylä-Anttila 2023, Weible et al. 2019) and recently in expressed emotions (Fullerton and Weible 2024, Gabehart et al. 2023). The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) relies on character portrayals and narrative storylines to depict allies and opponents via communication (Ruff, Stelmach, and Jones 2022, Merry 2019). The perspective of social identities in the policy process distinguishes different types of social groups that can affect intra- and intergroup relations (Hornung and Bandelow 2024, Hornung, Bandelow, and Vogeler 2018). Besides concrete theoretical frameworks, concepts such as Devil and Angel Shift (Hornung, Fullerton, and Weible 2025, Ksinsik 2024, Sabatier, Hunter, and McLaughlin 1987), there are additional behavioral theories including affective polarization (Dias and Lelkes 2022, Flores et al. 2022), and analyses of policy positions (Vormedal and Meckling 2024) outline the extent to which research on allies and opponents, their formation, their inter-relational dynamics and shifts, as well as their consequences on policy processes, outputs, and outcomes is flourishing. Finally, embedded within all of these theories are different emotions, which are both essential for increasing our understanding of how policy actors make sense of their world (Durnová, 2019),one’s willingness to participate as a member of a participating group (Bondi, 2014; Anderson, 2002), and other dynamics of how policy actors evaluate one another (Fullerton et al., 2025). This workshop brings together research on the identification of, as well as the interaction and perceptual dynamics among, allies and opponents in policy processes and regarding the per policy outputs, outcomes. We are interested in the following non-exhaustive research questions: - How do policy actors identify allies and opponents in policy processes? - What are the drivers of their conflict and their cooperation? - How do emotions contribute to allies and opponents in policy processes? - How do interactions and perceptions change over time? How do they differ across policy sectors and political contexts? - When do allies turn into opponents, and vice versa? - How do these dynamics influence policy processes, and above all policy change? - To what extent are the formation and perception of allies and opponents related to policy outcomes and impact on society? - Are there lessons for policy process scholars from behavioral sciences regarding allies and opponents? The workshop welcomes theoretical and methodological contributions that tackle one or several of the questions above, or related ones. We aim for a maximum of coherence of papers within the workshop to leave open the possibility of organizing a special issue. The agenda for the workshop will include presentations by all authors with in-depth feedback from the panel chairs and other participants. References Anderson, D.K. (2002). "A Psychodynamic Analysis of Discourse Theory: Understanding the Influence of Emotions, Regression, and Change." Administrative Theory and Praxis 24(10): 3-24. Bondi, L. (2014). “Understanding Feelings: Engaging with Unconscious Communication and Embodied Knowledge.” Emotion, Space and Society 10 (February): 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2013.03.009. Dias, Nicholas, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2022. "The Nature of Affective Polarization: Disentangling Policy Disagreement from Partisan Identity." American Journal of Political Science 66 (3):775-790. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12628. Durnová, A. (2019). Understanding Emotions in Post-Factual Politics. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788114820 Flores, Alexandra, Jennifer C. Cole, Stephan Dickert, Kimin Eom, Gabriela M. Jiga-Boy, Tehila Kogut, Riley Loria, Marcus Mayorga, Eric J. Pedersen, Beatriz Pereira, Enrico Rubaltelli, David K. Sherman, Paul Slovic, Daniel Västfjäll, and Leaf Van Boven. 2022. "Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (3):e2117543119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117543119. Fullerton, Allegra H., and Christopher M. Weible. 2024. "Examining emotional belief expressions of advocacy coalitions in Arkansas' gender identity politics." Policy Studies Journal. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12531. Fullerton, A. H., Durnová, A., & Weible, C. M. (2025). Characterizing allies and opponents in gender policy debates. Review of Policy Research, ropr.70009. Gabehart, Kayla M., Allegra H. Fullerton, Anna M. Crawford, and Christopher M. Weible. 2023. "How are Emotions and Beliefs Expressed in Legislative Testimonies? An Advocacy Coalition Approach." Review of Policy Research n/a (n/a). doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12562. Hornung, Johanna, and Nils C. Bandelow. 2024. "Social identities, emotions and policy preferences." Policy & Politics 35 (1):178–199. doi: 10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000036. Hornung, Johanna, Nils C. Bandelow, and Colette S. Vogeler. 2018. "Social identities in the policy process." Policy Sciences 52 (2):211-231. doi: 10.1007/s11077-018-9340-6. Hornung, Johanna, Allegra H. Fullerton, and Christopher M. Weible. 2025. "Devil and angel shifts in collective action: A call for integration and improvements." Policy Studies Journal n/a (n/a). doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70018. Ksinsik, Jule. 2024. "The devil-angel shift in times of crisis: How Swiss scientists used policy narratives during the COVID-19 pandemic." European Policy Analysis n/a (n/a). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1228. Merry, Melissa K. 2019. "Angels versus Devils: The Portrayal of Characters in the Gun Policy Debate." Policy Studies Journal 47 (4):882-904. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12207. Ruff, Jonathan W. A., Gregory Stelmach, and Michael D. Jones. 2022. "Space for Stories: Legislative Narratives and the Establishment of the US Space Force." Policy Sciences 55 (3):509-553. doi: 10.1007/s11077-022-09455-5. Sabatier, Paul, Susan Hunter, and Susan McLaughlin. 1987. "The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents." The Western Political Quarterly 40 (3):449-476. doi: 10.2307/448385. Satoh, Keiichi, Antti Gronow, and Tuomas Ylä-Anttila. 2023. "The Advocacy Coalition Index: A New Approach for Identifying Advocacy Coalitions." Policy Studies Journal 51 (1):187-207. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12450. Vormedal, Irja, and Jonas Meckling. 2024. "How foes become allies: the shifting role of business in climate politics." Policy Sciences 57 (1):101-124. doi: 10.1007/s11077-023-09517-2. Weible, Christopher M., Karin Ingold, Daniel Nohrstedt, Adam Douglas Henry, and Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith. 2019. "Sharpening Advocacy Coalitions." Policy Studies Journal 48 (4):1054-1081. doi: 10.1111/psj.12360.

1. Actors, Agents, and the Structure–Agency Problem Researchers have long studied actors and agency in policymaking as a key concern in the fields of political science, public administration and sociology. At its core lies the question of whether policy outcomes should be primarily explained by the structural and institutional architectures of governance systems, or by the strategic and intentional practices of individuals and organisational actors. This is in line with the ongoing structure-agency debate (Archer, 1995; Giddens, 1984), which continues to influence theoretical discussions and empirical research. To grasp the full complexity of policymaking, we must consider both the institutional settings in which decisions are made and the roles, repertoires and strategies through which human actors exert influence through all the policy cycle. This debate has been refined by recent scholarship, which has made the distinction between actors and agents more precise (Capano, Galanti, Ingold, Petridou & Weible, 2025). Actors are entities — either collective (governments, parliaments, NGOs and professional associations) or individual (ministers, bureaucrats and civil servants) — that occupy formal organisational or institutional roles. Agents, by contrast, are always individuals, defined not by their position but by the specific patterns of action they perform. Take bureaucrats, for instance. They are actors because of their role within an institution, but when they mobilise resources as brokers, leaders or entrepreneurs, they become agents. Therefore, actors capture who individuals are, while agents capture what they do. The same individual can be both simultaneously and may shift between roles over time. This distinction is crucial for avoiding conceptual ambiguity and identifying the mechanisms through which policy processes unfold. 2. Classical and Contemporary Perspectives on Agency The concept of agency has deep historical roots in policy studies. Early pluralist perspectives emphasised the role of organised interests in shaping outcomes through competition (Dahl, 1961). Subsequently, concepts such as 'iron triangles', 'policy communities' and 'epistemic communities' demonstrated how relatively stable groups of individuals exercised privileged influence (Heclo, 1978; Haas, 1992; Rhodes & Marsh, 1992). These approaches emphasised the resources that actors bring to policymaking, such as expertise, legitimacy, financial means, and networks. They also demonstrated how institutionalised constraints shape actors' access to and influence over policymaking. The development of policy process theories further systematised the analysis of agency. The Multiple Streams Framework highlights the role of policy entrepreneurs in linking problems, policies and politics (Kingdon, 1984/2011). The Advocacy Coalition Framework conceptualises actors as organised around shared beliefs, mobilising resources through coalition building and learning (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Punctuated Equilibrium Theory conceptualises policymaking as long periods of equilibrium punctuated by short bursts of dramatic change driven by shifts in attention and institutional friction; however, while actors may contribute to these shifts through reframing, venue shopping or mobilisation, the theory does not provide a systematic account of agency. Instead, it focuses on the institutional dynamics that enable or constrain change (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993/2009). The 'governance turn' of the 1990s further broadened this perspective, emphasising the importance of horizontal and interdependent networks of public, private, and societal actors (Sørensen & Torfing, 2007; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). In these accounts, agency is dispersed and relational, emerging from negotiation and iterative coordination, eventually bringing to new governance arrangements. However, governance research does not focus on the intentionality of the different agents but just emphasised that collaborative processes often reproduce power imbalances and accountability gaps (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Papadopoulos, 2010), while highlighting the patterns of interaction that become institutionalised in policymaking practice. Studies focusing on institutions from a policy perspective have acknowledged that actors can influence institutions through intentional action. A recent account of how actors become agents identifies four patterns of action that facilitate policy advancement. These patterns of behaviour allow agents to fulfil fundamental functions in the policymaking process. Leadership allows for the steering of the policy process, entrepreneurship provides the innovation needed for policy change, brokerage connects actors by intermediating resources at multiple levels, and knowledge production provides the intelligence required for crafting solutions and procedures (Capano et al., 2025). Crises illustrate the tensions between agency and structure particularly vividly. When routines collapse, the way in which resources are mobilised and legitimacy is preserved is shaped by leadership orientations — technocratic, deliberative, or charismatic (’t Hart, Stern & Sundelius, 1997; Boin, ’t Hart, Stern & Sundelius, 2017). Nevertheless, agency in times of crisis is influenced by institutional preparedness and accountability structures. Research on crisis leadership shows how contextual factors, prior experience, and epistemic orientations affect what leaders can achieve. Such situations also reveal characteristic patterns of agency, such as the centralisation of authority or the reliance on expert networks. Crises also may constrain, or alternatively increase, the resources available to agents. 3. Disaggregating Agency: Resources, Constraints, Drivers, Dynamics and Patterns To clarify the ways in which actors and agents influence policymaking, scholars have started analysing agency in terms of its constituent elements. These can work as analytical dimensions to better understand agency and can be summarized as follows. · Resources encompass formal and informal assets of agents, including competencies, financial means, expertise, legitimacy, and discursive power (Stone, 2002; Béland, 2009). · Constraints can be understood in terms of institutional rules, cultural norms, and material limitations, as well as path dependence (March & Olsen, 1989; Pierson, 2000) and dominant interpretive frames (Schön & Rein, 1994; Hajer, 2009). · Drivers include material interests (Olson, 1965), normative commitments (March & Olsen, 1989), causal beliefs (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993), and emotional or affective impulses (Marcus, Neumann & MacKuen, 2000; Moyson, 2017). · Dynamics capture how agency unfolds over time and through interaction, with strategies evolving via learning, feedback, and shifts in coalitions (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Dunlop & Radaelli, 2018). · Patterns refer to recurring forms through which agency is enacted. These include leadership styles, entrepreneurship, brokerage, knowledge exchange, repertoires of contention, and institutionalised and transformative practices that enable comparative generalisation (Capano & Galanti, 2018, 2021; Capano et al., 2025). 4. Towards a Cumulative Agenda Despite these contributions, agency is often conceptually underspecified in policy research and is generally assumed rather than explicitly theorised (Bevir, 2013; Peters, 2019). A way forward can be found by distinguishing between actors and agents while integrating the five dimensions of resources, constraints, drivers, dynamics and patterns. This can also be done by looking at empirical cases in terms of any of the agency dimensions proposed, to highlight how intentional agents really use resources, face constraints, acknowledge drivers, develop patterns and/or produce dynamics. The challenge lies in consolidating these insights into a cumulative research agenda that not only identifies the actors, but also explains how they act as agents, what motivates them, how their capacities are shaped, how their agency evolves over time and what patterned forms of action recur across governance contexts. The proposed workshop aims to clarify concepts, connect fragmented frameworks, and stimulate comparative and methodological innovation by convening scholars from diverse perspectives. In doing so, it aims to advance a systematic understanding of the multifaceted roles of actors and agents in policymaking and governance. References Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1993) Béland, D. (2009). Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760902983382 Bevir, M. (2013). A theory of governance. University of California Press. Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2017). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Capano, G., & Galanti, M. T. (2018). Policy dynamics and types of agency: From individual to collective patterns of action. European Policy Analysis, 4(1), 23–47. Capano, G., & Galanti, M. T. (2021). From policy entrepreneurs to policy entrepreneurship: Actors and actions in public policy innovation. Policy & Politics, 49(3), 321–342. Capano, G., Galanti, M. T., Ingold, K., Petridou, E., & Weible, C. M. (2025). Theorizing the functions and patterns of agency in the policymaking process. Policy Sciences, 58(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09517-7 Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press. Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2018). The lessons of policy learning: Types, triggers, hindrances and pathologies. Policy & Politics, 46(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15230059735521 Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442 Hajer, M. A. (2009). Authoritative governance: Policy making in the age of mediatization. Oxford University Press. Hay, C. (2002). Political analysis: A critical introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–124). American Enterprise Institute. Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Updated 2nd ed.). Longman. (Original work published 1984) Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. Free Press. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press. Moyson, S. (2017). Cognition and policy change: The consistency of policy learning in the advocacy coalition framework. Policy and Society, 36(2), 320–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1322259 Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press. Papadopoulos, Y. (2010). Accountability and multi-level governance: More accountability, less democracy? West European Politics, 33(5), 1030–1049. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2010.486126 Peters, B. G. (2019). Institutionalism and public policy. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Handbook of policy formulation (pp. 57–74). Edward Elgar. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586011 Rhodes, R. A. W., & Marsh, D. (1992). Policy networks in British government. Public Administration, 70(3), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1992.tb00900.x Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189–220). Westview Press. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (eds) (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.). W. W. Norton. ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (1997). Beyond groupthink: Political group dynamics and foreign policy-making. University of Michigan Press.

Climate change governance has evolved into a complex, polycentric process that cuts across multiple levels and temporalities, relying on both formal and informal networks. Climate governance has undergone a dramatic evolution, particularly since the Paris Agreement, which shifted the focus towards a bottom-up approach. Framework climate laws represent a crucial attempt to address climate change strategically. The workshop is proposed in the context of the rapid changes in public policies provoked by complex intergovernmental problems. Climate change is a profound governance and policy challenge that transcends sectors, scales, and borders. Public policy responses actively shape how climate vulnerabilities evolve. Consequently, climate change and policy responses must be understood as interdependent phenomena. The global perspective and the challenge of policy systems: The workshop argues that climate dynamics must be viewed as an intrinsic component of contemporary public policy, one that demands innovation in institutions, coordination, and multi-level governance. Climate change is considered a stress test of policy systems. Cutting across these issues, fundamental dimensions of multi-level governance (considering the rapport between global, national, and subnational governments, including specific local governmental responses at the city metro level) have become relevant due to the coordination imperatives of climate-based policies. We aim to contribute to the theoretical development of "climate governance capacity" as an analytical category. Focus on Latin American legislation and policy: The workshop departs from a strong body of research on the Latin American region, highlighting its "outstanding enthusiasm" in adopting national framework climate laws. We seek to understand how different countries are integrating climate concerns into their laws. Specific attention will be paid to the institutional architectures embedded in Latin American climate acts (e.g., Chile, Colombia, Mexico). We investigate how these institutional mixes (regulatory, coordination, advisory, financial tools) vary across jurisdictions and whether the structures reflect particularities, such as excessive powers concentrated in the national executive branch, limiting the influence of subnational authorities and social actors. Analyzing implementation challenges is central, focusing on the political and organizational barriers that explain the "implementation gap", including the impact of political instability. Primary objectives and theoretical focus (Integrated): The workshop seeks to achieve seven main objectives: 1. To map how different countries are integrating climate concerns into policy design and laws. 2. To systematically compare the institutional architectures embedded in climate legislation of selected jurisdictions. 3. To analyze how climate change impacts themselves can reshape public policy agendas, intergovernmental relations, and administrative structures. 4. To examine and deconstruct policy learning and diffusion mechanisms across countries or territories. 5. To contribute to the theoretical development of "climate governance capacity". 6. To analyze implementation challenges, focusing on the gap between legislative ambition and concrete achievements. 7. To identify country convergences and particularities through shared features among national climate policies. Core research questions (blended approach): • Institutional design (Legislation Focus): How do the institutional mixes established by climate acts vary across the countries, and which combinations appear most conducive to effective climate governance? Do the institutional structures reflect regional particularities, such as excessive powers concentrated in the national executive branch? • Diffusion and origins: How has climate governance influenced the adoption of domestic policies, particularly climate acts? How have international commitments facilitated the horizontal and vertical diffusion and learning of policies and legislative models within the countries? • Multi-level dynamics (Global Focus): What patterns of intergovernmental cooperation, mandate coordination mechanisms, and conflict emerge in different regional contexts and institutional structures to overcome the pervasive fragmentation of the state in climate action? • Implementation gaps: What are the primary political and organizational barriers that explain the "implementation gap" or the limited results produced by national climate acts? In federal systems (like Argentina and Mexico), how do the dynamics of subnational governments affect the successful adoption and implementation of national climate acts? Initial guiding hypotheses: The workshop will invite participants to test and refine hypotheses derived from comparative public policy, policy process research theories and multi-level governance literature: 1. Regions and countries with higher administrative and coordination capacities have more coherent and adaptive climate policy responses than fragmented or under-resourced governance systems. 2. The more climate objectives are embedded in intersectoral policies, the more likely a country or region is to achieve systemic adaptation rather than fragmented, short-term interventions. 3. Severe climate events act as catalysts for institutional learning and innovation, but only where feedback mechanisms and accountability structures exist. 4. Regions with greater social inequality and weaker participation mechanisms tend to produce climate policies that exacerbate vulnerability, while inclusive governance correlates with greater resilience. 5. Policy learning and diffusion across regions depend on the existence of national and international networks, epistemic communities, and funding mechanisms that facilitate policy adaptation rather than mere replication. Contributions and book projects: The workshop will advance theoretical debates on the interaction between climate change and public policy, seeking to reframe climate governance as a policy systems challenge. It will introduce climate governance capacity as a comparative analytical framework. Methodologically, it will encourage comparative analyses that connect global, national, and subnational governance levels. For practitioners, it aims to identify best practices and innovative governance mechanisms that enhance institutional resilience. This workshop is based on two related book projects. The one focusing on Climate Legislation in Latin America is already approved by Palgrave and serves as the regional foundation for this workshop. The second edited volume “Climate Governance and Public Policy Systems: Comparative Lessons across Regions,” with Palgrave Macmillan will welcome new contributions to be considered as additional chapters extending the original regional scope beyond the Americas.

Rationale Innovation policy research has recently highlighted the importance of public sector dynamic capabilities for the effective design and implementation of net zero transformative and mission-oriented innovation policies (Kattel 2022; Kattel and Mazzucato, 2018; Borras and Edler, 2020). Dynamic capabilities are the capabilities that allow organizations to integrate, build, and reconfigure their resources to adapt in rapidly changing environments and ensure sustained performance in the long term (Teece, 2007). These capabilities are particularly important in the current context, where the ability to learn and adapt are pivotal as the transformative and mission-oriented policies and the environments within which they are designed and implemented change. Dynamic capabilities, where the public sector officials and organizations are continually learning, are important so that governments can escape path dependence and break their ’old ways’ and structures that are not fit for new transformative policies. An emerging body of work has thus started to analyze public sector dynamic capabilities and the ways in which these can be created in public organizations (Karo, 2018; Kattel and Mazzucato, 2018; Kattel, 2022; Gullmark, 2021; Spanó et al., 2024; McLaren and Kattel, 2025). Despite these recent advances, our understanding of this emerging topic is still limited and in need of further theoretical elaboration. Objectives and Research Questions First, existing conceptualizations of dynamic capabilities generally focus on the organizational level, usually overlooking the role of public sector dynamic managerial capabilities, i.e. capabilities at the team and individual levels (Teece, 2007; Teece et al., 2016; Wilden et al., 2017). The dynamic managerial capabilities concept (Helfat and Martin, 2015; Helfat and Peteraf, 2015) extends the dynamic capabilities perspective by directing attention to managers, individually and in teams (Helfat and Martin, 2015), highlighting the role of entrepreneurial and leadership capabilities (Augier and Teece, 2009; Teece et al., 2016) possessed by a few individuals within an organization (Teece, 2014, 2021). Although there is research on dynamic managerial capabilities in firms, this conceptual development has not been carried out for public sector dynamic capabilities. In addition, current work on public sector capabilities tends to not explicitly differentiate between operational capabilities, i.e., those allowing organizations to perform their operations in an effective manner (short term efficiency), and dynamic capabilities, i.e., those allowing them to change and learn (long-term adaptability) (Teece, 2018; Teece et al., 2016). This distinction is not only important from a theoretical viewpoint, for conceptual rigor, but also at a practical level. Dynamic capabilities are particularly important given the ever-changing environments in which transformative policies are being developed and implemented. Finally, while innovation and strategy research has responded to calls for a greater focus on the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities (Helfat and Martin, 2015; Wilden et al., 2017; Schilke et al., 2018) and analyzed a plethora of them (Teece, 2012; Helfat and Peteraf, 2015; Enkel and Sagmeister, 2020), a similar effort has not yet been undertaken for public organizations. The microfoundations of dynamic capabilities are the organizational and individual abilities, as well as the organizational structures, tools and mechanisms that support their creation and development in organizations (Teece, 2007; Felin et al., 2012). While the innovation and public policy literatures discuss a variety of factors that can be conceived as microfoundations of public sector dynamic capabilities (e.g., Karo, 2018; Gullmark, 2021; Spanó et al., 2024; McLaren and Kattel, 2025), existing work is fragmented and overlooks key microfoundations, such as those underpinning team and individual dynamic managerial capabilities that have been deemed to be pivotal in innovation and management settings outside of the public sector. Therefore, the purpose of this workshop is to better understand how dynamic capabilities and their microfoundations function with further granularity within the public sector. To what extent do dynamic managerial and/or operational capabilities exist in the public sector? How do they differ from the private sector? For instance, are there attributes found in the public sector that make them more or less likely to be found there versus in the private sector? To what extent does the type of challenge faced by the public sector, such as climate change and net zero policies, influence dynamic managerial and/or organizational capabilities? In addition to comparing country contexts (such as countries in various parts of the global North), other important research aspects to consider are differences between levels of governments (e.g. municipalities, regional, national), kinds of government systems (e.g. a federation versus a more unitary system of government), etc. In this workshop proposal we welcome research within public and innovation policy for climate, and particularly net zero, and/or links to these topics, and the dynamic capabilities perspective to conceptually elaborate existing definitions of public sector dynamic capabilities, and to identify the microfoundations that support their creation and development in public organizations. Drawing on public and innovation policy research within the context of sustainability, the idea of the workshop would be to identify and categorize the organizational and individual abilities, structures, and mechanisms, as well as how to foster them, i.e., the microfoundations, that support the creation of sensing, seizing and transforming capabilities in public organizations. Expected Impact on Public Policy Research and/or Practice The complexity and dynamism of transformative policy requires that all stakeholders involved are able to learn and adapt, including the public sector, so insights on how to build dynamic capabilities in the public sector will help the development of this policy. Publication Outlet possibilities – Research Policy or Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

Research Question: How do corporations strategically shape knowledge, practices and attitudes to steer policy and influence agenda-setting? Corporations do far more than market products: they strategically shape entire knowledge ecologies and, through them, professional practices, public discourse, regulatory agendas, and policy outcomes. A substantial body of scholarship in public policy, political economy, and science and technology studies (STS) has documented how the pervasive influence of large corporations shape and redefine public policy, the public interest, and market economies (1–9). In many sectors, dominant corporations have the capacity to influence socio-political structures through orchestrated production and dissemination of research and expertise and obstruction against adverse narratives (6,10–13), as well as through different forms of capture over professionals, regulations, technology, civil society or media (14–19). The term “ghost-management” refers to these systematic corporate strategies to shape science, culture, policy agenda and public narratives, to hide risks and downplay harms of specific products and to influence experts, opinion leaders and policymakers, all while keeping the corporations’ roles obscured or in the shadows. Ghost-management encompasses practices such as planning, funding, and scripting of research; authorship and sponsorship arrangements; control over data, study design, and selective publication; deployment of key opinion leaders and “independent” intermediaries; revolving doors; litigation and lobbying strategies; and the architecture of social programs and public expenditures. Taken together, these practices can significantly influence or manipulate agenda-setting in public policy by steering what counts as evidence, which problems are seen as urgent, whose risks matter, and what regulatory solutions are “feasible.” In different industrial sectors, such as pharmaceuticals (6,19–22), tobacco (23,24), oil and gas (25,26), agriculture (27–29), online platforms (9,30) or chemicals (31,32), these strategies seem to have become a new normal taken directly from playbooks fostered by corporate lobbies and consulting, public relations, or communications companies. Because of ghost-management activities, public policy, especially when it came to sectors in which risk assessment has been central to earning-capacity (33), has long been vulnerable to corporate influence. The post-truth context in which disinformation, “alternative facts”, and “fake news” are becoming a growing challenge for the democratic governance of policy, is now amplifying these vulnerabilities to a whole new level (34,35). New populist movements and governments have embraced some ghost-managed knowledge, and have loudly rejected customary use of evidence within policymaking as epistemically corrupt, creating new dynamics affecting the politics of knowledge (36–39). This workshop invites contributions that theorize or empirically examine corporate ghost-management as a mode of governance. This workshop intends to bring together people from different disciplines to discuss how to study and identify ghost-management strategies, so as to develop policy tools to counter these corporate dynamics detrimental to the policy process. Corporate ghost-management represents a “wicked problem” because its drivers are interdependent, its mechanisms are opaque, and its solutions require cross-sectoral coordination and reflexivity. Addressing it demands not only better regulation, but deeper institutional learning about how knowledge and power intertwine in policymaking. This workshop seeks to advance a coherent research program on corporate influence and ghost-management in public policy. We welcome three types of contribution: 1. Empirical work that analyzes hidden corporate strategies at work to influence the policy process, or maps its mechanisms across sectors; 2. Theoretical work that supports an analytical framework to investigate these strategies; refines the conceptual approach based on ghost-management; or connects to theories of policy processes (e.g., Advocacy Coalition Framework, Multiple Streams, Punctuated Equilibrium), or explores governmentality and post-structural approaches; 3. Analytical works that translates findings into policy options and recommendations for institutional and policy remedies. We welcome submissions from public policy, political science, STS/STS-informed policy, sociology, law, public health, communication studies, economics, information science, and adjacent fields. We particularly encourage team-authored work that bridges disciplines or pairs academics with practitioners, journalists, or civil society organizations. We envision this workshop as helping to build an international network of researchers examining corporate influence on knowledge and policy. All accepted contributors will be invited to participate in the workshop discussions at Carleton University, where they will have the opportunity to present and receive feedback on their papers. Following the workshop, participants will be encouraged to submit revised versions of their papers for consideration for a special theme of the journal Studies in Political Economy dedicated to corporate ghost-management. References: 1. Veblen T. The theory of business enterprise. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Books; 1904. xx+400. 2. Baran PA, Sweezy PM. Monopoly capital: an essay on the American economic and social order. New York: Monthly Review Press; 1967. ix+402. 3. Galbraith JK. The New Industrial State. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press; 1967. 576 p. 4. Fligstein N. The architecture of markets: an economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton, N.J. ; Princeton University Press; 2001. xiv+274. 5. Birch K, Peacock M, Wellen R, Hossein C, Scott S, Salazar A. Business and Society: A Critical Introduction. London: Zed Books; 2017. 312 p. 6. Sismondo S. Ghost-Managed Medicine: Big Pharma’s Invisible Hands. Mattering Press; 2018. 234 p. 7. Carroll WK, Sapinski JP. Organizing the 1%: How Corporate Power Works. Black Point, Nova Scotia ; Winnipeg, Manitoba: Fernwood Publishing; 2018. 184 p. 8. Benquet M, Bourgeron T. Accumulating capital today: contemporary strategies of profit and dispossessive policies. Abingdon, Oxon ; Routledge; 2021. (Routledge studies in social and political thought). 9. Rikap C. Capitalism, Power and Innovation: Intellectual Monopoly Capitalism Uncovered [Internet]. Routledge; 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 2]. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/Capitalism-Power-and-Innovation-Intellectual-Monopoly-Capitalism-Uncovered/Rikap/p/book/9780367357634 10. Michaels D. Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford University Press, USA; 2008. 385 p. 11. Elmore, Bartow J. Seed Money: Monsanto’s Past and Our Food Future. New York: W.W. Norton & Compagny; 2021. 387 p. 12. Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change. New York London Oxford New Delhi Sydney: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2022. 368 p. 13. Rampton S, Stauber J. Trust us, we’re experts!: how industry manipulates science and gambles with your future. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam; 2001. 360 p. 14. Carpenter D, Moss DA, editors. Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit it [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013 [cited 2022 Nov 2]. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/preventing-regulatory-capture/4DF3FC5A3202552A18F3D41835D46833 15. Miller D, Harkins C. Corporate strategy, corporate capture: Food and alcohol industry lobbying and public health. Critical Social Policy. 2010 Nov 1;30(4):564–89. 16. Lapira TM, Thomas HF. Revolving door lobbyists and interest representation. Interest Groups & Advocacy. 2014 Mar;3(1):4–29. 17. Finch J, Geiger S, Reid E. Captured by technology? How material agency sustains interaction between regulators and industry actors. Research Policy. 2017 Feb 1;46(1):160–70. 18. Gagnon MA. Ghost management as a central feature of accumulation in corporate capitalism : The case of the global pharmaceutical sector. In: Marlène Benquet, Théo Bourgeron, editors. Accumulating Capital Today. London and New York: Routledge; 2021. 19. Gagnon MA, Dong M. What did the scientific literature learn from internal company documents in the pharmaceutical industry? A scoping review. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods. 2023;1(3):e12011. 20. Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L. ‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. PLOS Biology. 2017;15(9):e2-. 21. Fabbri A, Lai A, Grundy Q, Bero LA. The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review. Am J Public Health. 2018 Nov;108(11):e9–16. 22. Riva C, Tinari S, Gagnon MA. Ghost Management at Work: A Practical Guide for the Investigation and Mapping of Health Affairs [Internet]. Ottawa: Carleton University; 2024 p. 52. Available from: https://carleton.ca/ghostmanagement/wp-content/uploads/GMW-A-Cr15-EN-Digital-1.pdf 23. Proctor RN. Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2012. 774 p. 24. Wieland LS, Rutkow L, Vedula SS, Kaufmann CN, Rosman LM, Twose C, et al. Who Has Used Internal Company Documents for Biomedical and Public Health Research and Where Did They Find Them? PLoS One. 2014 May 6;9(5):e94709. 25. Downie C. Business actors, political resistance, and strategies for policymakers. Energy Policy. 2017;108:583–92. 26. Plehwe D. Think tank networks and the knowledge-interest nexus: the case of climate change. Critical policy studies. 2014;8(1):101–15. 27. Krimsky S, Gillam C. Roundup litigation discovery documents: implications for public health and journal ethics. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2018;39(3):318–26. 28. Bacon MH, Vandelac L, Gagnon MA, Parent L. Poisoning Regulation, Research, Health, and the Environment: The Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Case in Canada. Toxics. 2023 Feb;11(2):121. 29. Clapp J. Titans of Industrial Agriculture: How a Few Giant Corporations Came to Dominate the Farm Sector and Why It Matters. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press; 2025. 474 p. 30. Bucher T. If ... Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford University Press; 2018. 217 p. 31. Richter L, Cordner A, Brown P. Producing Ignorance Through Regulatory Structure: The Case of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Sociological Perspectives. 2021 Aug 1;64(4):631–56. 32. Dong M, Gagnon MA. Unveiling chemical industry secrets: Insights gleaned from scientific literatures that examine internal chemical corporate documents—A scoping review. PLOS ONE. 2025 Jan 2;20(1):e0310116. 33. Beck U. World at risk. Cambridge, UK ; Polity Press; 2009. viii+269. 34. Speed E, Mannion R. The Rise of Post-truth Populism in Pluralist Liberal Democracies: Challenges for Health Policy. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. 2017 May 1;6(5):249–51. 35. Fischer F. Knowledge politics and post-truth in climate denial: on the social construction of alternative facts. Critical policy studies. 2019;13(2):133–52. 36. Ylä-Anttila T. Populist knowledge: ‘Post-truth’ repertoires of contesting epistemic authorities. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology. 2018 Oct 2;5(4):356–88. 37. Kwok H, Singh P, Heimans S. The regime of ‘post-truth’: COVID-19 and the politics of knowledge. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. 2023 Jan 2;44(1):106–20. 38. Kidd IJ. Epistemic corruption and political institutions. In: The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology. Routledge; 2021. 39. Sismondo S. Epistemic Corruption, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Body of Medical Science. Front Res Metr Anal [Internet]. 2021 Mar 8 [cited 2025 Apr 4];6. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/research-metrics-and-analytics/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.614013/full

Wicked problems such as climate change, environmental degradation, and global health crises continue to challenge governance systems across the globe. These problems are defined by their complexity, uncertainty, and the presence of conflicting values and interests among different stakeholders (Head, 2022). Addressing them requires a solid foundation of evidence to support informed decision-making. For instance, addressing climate change requires understanding the causes and impacts of climate change including integrating scientific data, environmental modelling, and socioeconomic analysis to guide effective and acceptable mitigation and adaptation measures. Similarly, responding to global health crises, such as pandemics, depends on reliable evidence to inform public health strategies, vaccine development, and international cooperation. However, the use of scientific evidence in wicked problem settings remains sparse and subject to various conditions, underscoring the need to better understand the factors influencing its relevance and use throughout the policy process associated with such problems (Head, 2010; Cairney, 2016). In the past years, public policy scholars have come up with diverse interrelated factors affecting the effective integration of scientific evidence into policy processes related to wicked problems characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and contested values. Amongst these, we highlight here three strands of emerging factors potentially affecting the translation of scientific evidence in policy processes which are worth further investigation: 1. Type of evidence affecting translation The nature of the scientific evidence related to wicked problems plays a crucial role in its uptake. Evidence that is actionable, contextualized, and timely generally enhances its relevance to policymakers, also in wicked problem contexts. At the same time, researchers may have various functions in different types of policy problems, with problem-sensing and recognizing being more relevant in wicked, unstructured problem contexts and problem solving being more relevant in the case of tame, more structured problems (Hoppe et al., 2023). Research has further continuously suggested that co-produced knowledge, and specifically knowledge resulting from transdisciplinary approaches including scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders influence the uptake of scientific knowledge and the framing of wicked problems (e.g., Head & Xiang, 2016; Pohl et al., 2017). 2. Approaches affecting translation Further, the mechanisms through which scientific evidence is communicated to policymakers are pivotal. For instance, traditional approaches to science communication often involve linear transmission of knowledge (deficit model of science communication), whereas more recent approaches emphasize a bilateral flow of information (dialogic and participatory model of science communication) (Sokolovska et al., 2019; Metcalfe 2019, 2022). These participatory processes foster mutual understanding and trust, leading to more effective integration of evidence into policy. Further, the role of intermediaries and boundary organizations has been emphasized for translating scientific evidence into policy, as they facilitate communication and negotiation between different knowledge communities (Wesselink & Hoppe, 2020; Kirschke & Kosow, 2025). 3. Contextual factors affecting translation The broader institutional and political context significantly influences the use of scientific evidence. Factors such as the capacity of public authorities, political-administrative cultures, and policy legacies shape translational practices and outcomes. Emerging technologies, particularly digital tools and artificial intelligence (AI), are increasingly being utilized to process and disseminate scientific evidence, potentially reshaping how evidence is used in policy processes. Do these AI tools signal both a revival of interest and perhaps increased capacity for evidence-based analysis? Or do they equally increase the prospect of disinformation and confusion? Against this background, this workshop further examines how interaction at the science–policy interface (SPI) shapes the understanding and management of ‘wicked’ (Rittel & Webber, 1973), ‘unstructured’ (Hoppe, 2011) or ‘uncertainty’ problems (Dewulf & Biesbroek, 2018) throughout the policy process—from problem framing and policy design to implementation and evaluation. We explore and analyse different influencing factors for evidence-based policy design in wicked problem settings. This includes relevant contents, approaches, and emerging contextual factors affecting translation. The workshop addresses the three following sets of questions: 1. Type of evidence affecting translation a. What types of scientific evidence are translated into the policy process in the context of wicked problems, characterized by complexity, complexity, and uncertainty? b. How do different models of knowledge co-production between scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders influence the uptake of scientific knowledge and the framing of wicked problems, in particular? 2. Approaches affecting translation a. What are traditional and innovative approaches to science-policy interaction, and what are their comparative effects on policy processes? b. What roles do different actors, and intermediaries and boundary organizations, in particular, play in translating scientific evidence into policy processes? 3. Contextual factors affecting translation a. How do digital tools and AI reshape the use of evidence in wicked problem domains? b. How do institutional settings and political-administrative cultures shape translational practices and outcomes? By addressing these questions, the workshop aims to advance a more nuanced understanding of evidence-informed decision-making under conditions of complexity and contestation. Collectively, the contributions will illuminate how interactions at the science-policy interface can move beyond the symbolic use of evidence to support meaningful, adaptive, and legitimate policy change in the governance of wicked problems. References Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Springer. 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. (2010). Reconsidering evidence-based policy: Key issues and challenges. Policy and society, 29(2), 77-94. Head, B. W., & Xiang, W. N. (2016). Why is an APT approach to wicked problems important? Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 4-7. Head, B. W. (2022). Wicked problems in public policy: Understanding and responding to complex challenges (p. 176). Springer Nature. Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering, participation. Policy Press. Hoppe, R., & Turnbull, N. (2024). Problem structuring, wrong-problem problems and metagovernance as the strategic management of intractable positions: The case of the EU GM Crop Regulatory Framework controversy. Public Policy and Administration, 39(3), 475-496. Kirschke, S., & Kosow, H. (2025). Structuring wicked problems in science communication. Review of Policy Research. Metcalfe, J. (2019). Rethinking science communication models in practice. Online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/228126323.pdf (Accessed 11.06.2024). Metcalfe, J. (2022). Science communication: a messy conundrum of practice, research and theory Journal of Science Communication 21(C07). doi: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21070307 Pohl, C., Truffer, B., & Hirsch-Hadorn, G. (2017). Addressing wicked problems through transdisciplinary research. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, 2, 319-331. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169. Sokolovska, N., Fecher, B., & Wagner, G. G. (2019). Communication on the science-policy interface: an overview of conceptual models. Publications, 7(4), 64. Wesselink, A., & Hoppe, R. (2020). Boundary organizations: intermediaries in science–policy interactions. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.

1) A workshop to discuss the initial results of a research project This workshop is part of an ongoing international comparative research project involving 10 countries (APIICC, launched in 2024 and funded by the French National Research Agency, ANR: https://anr.fr/en/funded-projects-and-impact/funded-projects/project/funded/project/b2d9d3668f92a3b9fbbf7866072501ef-3fa1677a1c/? tx_anrprojects_funded%5Bcontroller%5D=Funded&cHash=38bfae620e2a063bf8a92409549bba9a). 2) Issues addressed While climate change (CC) is a physical change, it is a political challenge too. The debates during the last COP show that expectations are very high regarding policies to support adaptation and mitigation. National and local climate plans and their policy instruments have proliferated since the late 2000s (Peters, Tosun, 2021; Lesnikowski, 2017; Massey et al. 2014; Milhorance et al., 2022; UNFCCC NDC Registry). However, first, they are often considered too modest to challenge CC and, second and above all, climate risk is often amplified by the risk of bad governance (policy implementation gap - Dupuis, Knoeffel, 2014; Giles et al., 2021-, lack of coordination, deficit of policy integration, slow implementation of climate plans due to incremental change - Mushtaq, 2018; Levin et al., 2012-, bureaucratic traditions and policy styles - Peters, 2021-, that lock in older policy choices and change perspectives - Groen et al. 2022; Rosenbloom, 2018) that slow down climate action. The ‘Climate super wicked problem’ becomes a ‘tragedy’ because ‘time is running out’ (Levin et al., 2012). Faced with this general statement, CC must be addressed by substantial technical and financial policy instruments and, at the same time, by suitable governance. Therefore, the main assumption of the APIICC project is that institutional innovation (Patterson & Huitema, 2019) in the procedural instruments for climate governance is one of the main ways to end the ‘tragedy’ for improving climate policy efficiency. Procedural instruments are “designed to indirectly affect outcomes through the manipulation of policy process” (Howlett, 2008). Unlike traditional “substantive” instruments, which directly affect the delivery of goods and services in society (incentives for resource conservation or agroecology practices, etc.), “procedural” policy instruments are intended to manage state-societal interactions in order to ensure general support for government aims and initiatives (Howlett, 2008) and process aspects of policy-making rather than its substance Procedural tools are policy techniques or mechanisms designed to affect how a policy is formulated and implemented (Bali et al., 2021). Procedural instruments are therefore technical tools for the mechanics of policy governance, instruments for (following Singh Bali et al., 2021). In other words, they are instruments for governance whose innovation could improve the latter. The APIICC project focuses on two aspects in particular: to what extent can institutional innovation improve the integration of the long-term impact of CC in today's agricultural public policies? To what extent can institutional innovation accelerate their implementation? This debate concerning procedural instruments and governance is intertwined with that of polycentric governance vs. environmental authoritarianism. Indeed, literature opposes two ways to stop the ‘tragedy’, treating this issue of authority in a binary way (Wong, 2016; Mittiga, 2025): authoritarian interventions vs. institutional innovation for polycentric governance. On the one hand, authoritarian environmentalism is declared more efficient than democracy as it produces outcomes more easily (China case), because it is less short-termist and exposes its leaders to less blame (Gilley, 2012). Democratic legitimacy would decrease and authoritarianism would have more secure legitimacy (Mittiga, 2021, 2025) facing long-term climate issues. However, this debate must be qualified: some studies have questioned the influence of disasters on the transformation of political regimes: the more authoritarian regimes are, the more vulnerable to disasters they are (Pelling, 2010). Moreover, environmental authoritarianism seems politically perilous insofar as ‘big bang’ policies for super wicked problems that change all individual behaviors fail to garner adequate support and produce societal ‘shocks’ that hamper implementation and compliance (Levin et al., 2012). On the other hand, in open regimes with polycentric governance, the literature on new environmental policy instruments (Jordan et al., 2013) has observed a decline in authoritarian/hierarchical instruments (“sticks”) in favor of flexible and voluntary instruments (‘incentives’ and “nodality”) (Lascoumes, Valluy, 1997; Lascoumes, Simard, 2011; Jordan et al., 2003). Regulatory pluralism is common (Pacheco-Vega, 2019), mixing coercive and flexible instruments. The question that arises here is: to what extent do innovative procedural instruments for climate governance incorporate authority in order to enable both polycentrism (Jordan et al., 2018) and open governance, as well as the ability to impose rapid action on the complex issue of climate and move directly towards “environmental ends” (Wong, 2016)? In any case, this literature is useful in showing that policy instruments, and procedural instruments in particular, provide a privileged basis for observing these policies and institutional innovation in governance. 3) Relevance of the workshop The relevance of the workshop is to compare the initial results of the APIICC project with those of other researchers around the world who are working in general on climate governance and questioning the relationship between institutional innovation and governance in managing the climate “tragedy” highlight by Levin & al. (2012). Firstly, beyond the case of agriculture, the aim will be to take stock of the types of innovation, particularly in terms of procedural instruments, that are emerging in climate policy governance. Secondly, the aim will be to understand the processes of innovation in climate governance (policy objectives, policy processes, types of innovation and innovators). Thirdly, it will be necessary to understand how these instruments are changing climate governance. Finally, fourthly, it will be necessary to clarify the debate between environmental authoritarianism and institutional innovation in order to improve the polycentric governance of climate policies. 4) Five objectives of the workshop Objective 1: to take stock, at the midway point, of the progress of the work and the initial results of the APIICC project. The project researchers will present the results in different countries/case studies. Objective 2: Provide answers and empirical results to the two main questions addressed in point 1), based on completed or ongoing empirical research, regardless of the countries or public policy sectors studied. Objective 3: Compare these results with those of researchers studying these issues in sectors other than climate policy (energy, transport, etc.). Objective 4: The third objective is to prepare publications (a book and a special issue of the journal Climat Governance Innovation and Improvement). Objective 5: List possible theoretical approaches to the relationship between institutional innovation and climate governance.

1.RESEARCH QUESTION Public sector innovation is influenced by a complex interplay of organizational capacities, inter-organizational dynamics, and institutional environments. Understanding how these contexts enable or constrain innovation is crucial for explaining why some initiatives thrive while others stall or remain symbolic. This workshop brings together scholars exploring the conditions of innovation across organizational, meso-, and macro-levels, aiming to bridge perspectives from public management, policy studies, and governance research. To guide submissions (pick any that fit your focus): • How do organizational factors (e.g., leadership, culture, capacity, and routines) shape innovative activities, such as the initiation, implementation and sustainability of innovations within policy design, policy implementation or public service delivery? • How do networks, partnerships, sectoral ecosystems, and professional communities influence the design, diffusion, scaling, and legitimacy of innovations? •How do political institutions, economic conditions, administrative traditions, legal frameworks, and reform trajectories open or limit possibilities for innovation? 2.CONTEXT Public sector organizations in several countries are under pressure due to economic, financial, security, social, health, and demographic challenges (Demircioglu & Vivona, 2020). At the same time, a new generation of technological innovations such as digital platforms and artificial intelligence offers possibilities to rethink long-standing practices (Guenduez et al., 2025). The combination of social challenges and rapidly advancing technologies has created a complex environment for policy design, policy implementation and public service delivery. Persistent cutbacks forces governments to make difficult choices between short-term service delivery and long-term reform. Health emergencies and security threats expose weaknesses in crisis management. Social fragmentation, demographic shifts, and migration increase the demand for more tailored, inclusive, and preventive policy and service design. At the same time, digital technologies offer ways to redesign service systems, improve policy foresight, and build trust through openness, yet their potential remains highly context dependent (Eom and Lee, 2022 ). In many countries, innovation within policy and service delivery is constrained not by a lack of ideas but by the conditions under which those ideas must operate. Rigid administrative procedures, fragmented accountability structures, limited investment in digital infrastructure, and risk-averse cultures often prevent the experimentation of new ideas. In others, political turnover or unstable governance undermines continuity and learning that leads to repeated waves of reform. Conversely, some governments can turn contextual constraints into enablers and used crises or fiscal austerity as catalysts for innovation (Demircioglu & Audretsch, 2024) The significance of context is therefore central to understand when and how innovation in public sector can emerge and survive. At the organizational level, agency is surrounded by organisational factors such as leadership, managerial autonomy, organisational routines and structures that determine whether new practices are developed and sustained. At the meso level, collaboration arrangements, citizen participation, advocacy coalitions and policy ecosystems mediate how ideas circulate and gain legitimacy across jurisdictions or service domains. At the macro level, socio-economic conditions, administrative traditions, political institutions, and reform trajectories define the boundaries of what is possible and the pace at which transformative or incremental change can occur. The workshop takes this diversity of pressures and opportunities as its point of departure. By comparing how contexts at different or cross-levels shape the adoption, diffusion, and sustainability of innovation, the discussions will illuminate why some governments convert contextual constraints into productive change while others remain locked in established practices. 3.STATE OF THE ART Research on innovation in the public sector has evolved from diffusion perspectives (Walker et al., 2011; Walker, 2014) toward a more nuanced understanding of how organizational and institutional contexts condition innovation processes (Borins, 2018; Cinar et al. 2024a). Foundational studies (Borins, 1998;2014; Hartley et al., 2013; Osborne & Brown, 2011) established that innovation in the public sector differs fundamentally from private sector models, as it unfolds within political, legal, and administrative constraints. Research has since revealed substantial variation in innovation types and trajectories across countries, reflecting the influence of political institutions, administrative traditions, and governance arrangements (Cinar et al., 2024a; 2024b; 2025; Suchitwarasan et al., 2024). This lead to a need to develop multi- level understanding linking the organizational, meso, and macro contexts of innovation considering the service logic in the public sector (Osborne et al., 2022). At the organizational level, leadership, learning culture, managerial autonomy, and workforce composition play decisive roles in the initiation and sustainability of of public sector innovation (Damanpour et al., 2009). Additionally, Eempirical studies highlight that demographic factors, agency type, and internal routines shape the implementation of innovative practices (Demircioglu, 2020). This underscores the need to treat organizational context as a dynamic enabler or barrier rather than a static background variable. At the meso level, collaborative networks, professional communities, and sectoral ecosystems are central to how innovations are generated and disseminated. Network governance research (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016; Ansell & Torfing, 2021) shows that the structure of inter-organizational ties, particularly their density, centrality, and coordination, shapes both creativity and implementation. Chen, Huang, and Zhang (2023) demonstrate that collaborative innovation depends on how actor–project networks are organized: centralized structures enhance coordination, whereas distributed ones foster diversity but risk fragmentation. Such dynamics reveal that governance design mediates whether collaboration becomes a driver or barrier to innovation. However, comparative evidence remains limited on how these mechanisms function across different contexts, where power asymmetries and resource dependencies often determine the balance between cooperation and constraint. At the macro level, national contexts critically influence how innovation in the public sector emerges, evolves, and survive. Comparative studies show political, administrative and social contexts produce distinct innovation configurations in different countries (Cinar et al., 2024a,2024b; Suchitwarasan et al., 2024). Cinar et al., (2025) conducted a multi-level political context analysis and illustrates through the case of Ukraine, political contexts at international, national and sub-national levels are not static backdrops but contested arenas shaped by critical junctures, path dependency, and power redistribution. These dynamics reveal that macro-level conditions both constrain and enable innovation depending on how actors and advocacy coalitions interpret and respond to institutional legacies and critical junctures. Yet, comparative evidence remains limited on how such political and institutional dynamics interact with organizational and meso-level factors to shape enduring innovation trajectories. There is also a pressing need for more empirical evidence from the Global South and Asia, where diverse governance traditions, reform trajectories, and development priorities can yield valuable insights into how contextual factors drive or hinder public sector innovation. 4.HYPOTHESES: Contextual Interdependence Hypothesis – Innovation outcomes in the public sector are not determined by single-level conditions but by the interdependence between organizational, meso-level, and macro-level contexts. Alignment across these levels enhances the initiation, diffusion, and sustainability of innovation, particularly in systems where policy responsibilities and fiscal capacities are distributed across multiple tiers of government. Governance Design Hypothesis – The design of collaborative and network governance structures mediates how contextual factors influence innovation. Arrangements that balance coordination and autonomy, across governmental, civic, and community-based actors, are more likely to transform contextual constraints into enablers of innovation, fostering legitimacy and inclusiveness in reform processes. Contextual Divergence Hypothesis – The enabling or constraining effects of context vary across governance systems and regions. Evidence from diverse administrative and social environments can reveal how distinct institutional legacies, power structures, and developmental priorities generate different pathways for innovation. 5.PAPERS The workshop welcomes empirical, theoretical, and methodological contributions that deepen understanding of how contextual conditions shape innovation in policy and public services. Submissions may focus on any single level—organizational, meso, or macro—or explore interactions across them. Comparative and multi-level analyses are particularly encouraged, as are studies that investigate how power, governance design, and institutional diversity influence innovation trajectories. Empirical papers may include case studies, longitudinal analyses, or comparative research examining how political–institutional arrangements, collaborative networks, or organizational factors enable or constrain innovation. Theoretical papers may advance frameworks that integrate multi-level contexts, service logic, or power-sensitive perspectives into the study of public sector innovation. Methodological papers are invited to propose new ways of capturing contextual interdependence, such as through configurational analysis, process tracing, mixed methods, or text mining. 6.AGENDA The workshop will be organized as an interactive and developmental forum, combining short paper presentations, structured discussions, and synthesis sessions designed to generate conceptual and empirical advances on how contextual conditions shape public sector innovation. The format will emphasize dialogue rather than formal presentations, enabling participants to engage across disciplinary and methodological boundaries. The sessions will begin with thematic clusters aligned with the three contextual levels—organizational, meso, and macro— followed by an integrative discussion on cross-level linkages. Each presenter will provide a concise 10-minute overview of their paper, followed by a focused discussion led by an assigned discussant and open debate with participants. A final plenary synthesis will bring together insights from all sessions to identify converging themes, conceptual frameworks, and methodological challenges for future research. To support continuity and collaboration beyond the workshop, participants will be invited to contribute to a collective research agenda aimed at developing comparative and multi-level approaches to studying innovation in policy and service systems. The organizers plan to pursue a special issue on “Putting Public Sector Innovation in Context,” depending on the quality and complementarity of accepted papers. REFERENCES Borins, S F. 2014. “The Persistence of Innovation in Government.” Brookings Institution Press with Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Borins, S F. 2018. “Public Sector Innovation in a Context of Radical Populism.” Public Management Review 20 (12): 1858–1871. doi:10.1080/14719037.2018.1441430. Cinar, E., Prodius, O., Sokoly, I., Ozcan, S., & Guenduez, A. A. (2025). The political context of public sector innovation: A critical interpretive synthesis on Ukraine. Research Policy, 54(10), 105322. Cinar, E., Simms, C., Trott, P., & Demircioglu, M. A. (2024). Public sector innovation in context: A comparative study of innovation types. Public Management Review, 26(1), 265-292. Cinar, E., Demircioglu, M. A., Acik, A. C., & Simms, C. (2024). Public sector innovation in a city state: exploring innovation types and national context in Singapore. Research Policy, 53(2), 104915. Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650-675. Demircioglu, M. A., & Vivona, R. (2021). Depoliticizing the European immigration debate: How to employ public sector innovation to integrate migrants. Research Policy, 50(2), 104150. Eom, S. J., & Lee, J. (2022). Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101690. Guenduez, A. A., Demircioglu, M. A., Mueller, E. M., & Cinar, E. (2025). Digital innovation strategies in the public sector. Research Policy, 54(8), 105274 Hartley J, Sørensen E and Torfing J. 2013. Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship. Public Admin Rev 73 (6): 821–830. doi:10.1111/puar.12136. Osborne, S. P., Powell, M., Cui, T., & Strokosch, K. (2022). Value creation in the public service ecosystem: An integrative framework. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 634-645. Suchitwarasan, C., Cinar, E., Simms, C., & Kim, J. Y. (2024). Public sector innovation for sustainable development goals: A comparative study of innovation types in Thailand and Korea. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 83(4), 603-624. Walker, R M. 2014. “Internal and External Antecedents of Process Innovation: A Review and Extension.” Public Management Review 16 (1, SI): 21–44. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.771698. Walker, RM, F Damanpour, and CA. Devece. 2011. ”Management Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Mediating Effect of Performance Management.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2): 367–86.

Context and MotivationRegulatory governance has become an increasingly prominent concept that has organized an interdisciplinary field of study within the social sciences. This field of study has centered attention on the, at times, contradictory forces of neoliberal globalization as they relate to the forms, dynamics and functions of regulation that operate in the context of larger national, regional, and international governance architectures. For instance, regulatory governance scholarship has examined how the forces of neoliberal globalisation, on the one hand, are thought to lead states to reduce their interventions in markets, opting for the role of steering, while leaving the private sector to row. States, in this respect, are thought to be undertaking actions of deregulation and privatization. Yet, on the other hand, neoliberal globalization has created the conditions for even more rules, designed to facilitate the functioning of global markets, leading to the concept of regulatory capitalism, or to contest over the functioning of these markets, leading to various and competing forms of private regulatory governance. The field of regulatory governance has advanced our understanding of these contradictions and their results, as well as building new conceptual foundations for sustained attention to the operation and consequences of regulation as a contested instrument of social control. The journal Regulation & Governance, for the past two decades, has been central to advancing scholarship focused specifically on the intersecting dynamics of regulatory instruments and processes and governance more generally. What advances has this collective project brought about? What conceptual innovations, empirical findings, and theoretical advances has this sustained body of work generated? And, more importantly, what does it tell us about the future of regulatory governance, in our current moment of polycrisis? The proposed workshop will invite papers that broadly contribute to answering these questions by looking back at the developing field of regulatory governance and projecting forward our current understandings to make sense of the turbulent moment we are in. We welcome papers that take any of the following formats: (1) Conceptual or theoretical papers that seek to integrate existing knowledge and propose agendas for further research. Such papers can take stock of various themes, theories, and concepts that have received sustained attention in the field of regulatory governance. Examples include regulatory growth and complexity, the regulatory state, or regulatory intermediaries. (2) Focused empirical papers that examine past, current or future regulatory governance dynamics or challenges. Such papers can focus on specific jurisdictions, forms of regulation, sectors or issue areas. Examples include environmental policies in European countries or China or privatisation in Latin America. Papers that are presented at the workshop will have the opportunity to be considered as part of the 20th anniversary special issue of the journal Regulation & Governance that will be published in 2027. Selected papers will need to be revised and submitted to the journal by August 31, 2026, and they will undergo the normal peer review process for original articles. Thus, being invited to submit will be no guarantee that a paper will end up as part of the final special issue. AgendaThe workshop will be structured around subthemes based on the papers that are submitted and selected for attendance. These themes will in large part be divided by those papers that are looking at what we have learned and those that are seeking to understand the current moment or future of regulatory governance. Each set of papers will include a discussant and a rapporteur, the latter of which will play a role in the final session of the workshop. In the final session, we will draw out main themes, using the key notes and reflections from each session's rapporteurs. This will also serve as a mechanism for establishing key themes and issues that may require general attention by each of the papers to be included in the 20th anniversary special issue.

Public accountability and responsiveness of policy decisions are core tenets of representative democracy. However, in contemporary democracies, many key policy decisions are taken by independent agencies (or non-majoritarian institutions), including regulators and central banks (Vibert 2007). These bodies are deliberately located outside core government structures and operate at arm’s length from politics, which is said to enable them to commit more credibly to long-term policy objectives such as economic stability and development (e.g., Miller and Whitford 2016). As they are not part of the traditional chain of delegation in democracies (cf. Strøm et al. 2003), they are largely insulated from their (political) principals and are not expected to be responsive to democratic input, or at least not in the traditional sense (cf. Rauh and Van der Veer 2024). Therefore, they are often said to suffer a “democratic deficit” (see, e.g., Maggetti 2010). Yet, independence from government departments and politicians does not mean that independent agencies are completely detached from politics and the wider public or disembedded from democratic systems. On the one hand, the bodies are still subject to oversight mechanisms and may act transparently and provide (voluntary) account to different types of account-holders. On the other hand, they may still (seek to) act responsively towards the wider public, even if this does not take the form of full-fledged policy responsiveness. First of all, as regards accountability, independent agencies are often subject to various processes ensuring that their conduct is adequately scrutinized by elected policymakers. These processes can take the form of regular hearings or the obligation to publish their policy decisions, annual reports, and accounts, thus also contributing to transparency. Most democratic systems allow parliamentary committees to hold hearings of the organizations' key decision-makers, not only to ask about their decisions and strategies, but also to question them before they are appointed (e.g., Matthews 2020). While politicians cannot normally overrule the decisions of independent agencies, they do pass judgment, give guidance, and decide on resources, appointments, and statutory provisions (Koop and Scotto di Vettimo 2024). Evidence on parliamentary scrutiny of independent agencies is mixed. Such scrutiny faces classic challenges of parliamentary accountability – competition for attention and information asymmetries between expert officials and less specialized parliamentarians (Schillemans and Busuioc 2015; Schonhardt-Bailey 2013, 2022). Scholars also highlight “forum drift,” where formal account holders choose not to hold agents to account, placing accountability deficits with principals rather than bureaucrats (Schillemans and Busuioc 2015; Brandsma 2013; Matthews 2020). Similarly, research on central banks shows that political disincentives and limited information hinder effective oversight (Tucker 2018). Yet other studies note parliamentary engagement and learning (Collignon and Diessner 2016) and show that partisanship and deliberation vary by context (Ferrara et al. 2021; Schonhardt-Bailey 2022). Furthermore, independent agencies actively render account to the wider public via a number of actions and initiatives. In part, they are obliged to do so, but many organizations go above and beyond what is required by engaging in voluntary account-giving (e.g., Koop, 2014; De Boer 2023), and in some cases are actually more transparent than ministerial counterparts (Thatcher 2002). For instance, independent agencies may explain their policy decisions in press conferences, news releases, and speeches (e.g., Binder 2017; Koop 2014; Rauh 2023). In this way, they give accounts of their actions and decisions to their stakeholders and to the public at large. Additionally, the organization’s statutes prescribe what sort of information and explanation needs to be publicly shared (Koop 2011). Such public information and accounts are often discussed in the media, who represent an additional forum for “soft” accountability alongside legislative oversight (e.g., Koop and Scotto di Vettimo 2023). Secondly, though insulated from electoral pressures, independent agencies may still be responsive to the wider public, even if not in the sense of policy decisions following public preferences. Research has traditionally focused on the extent to – and the way in – which these bodies engage with their relevant expert stakeholders (for instance, their regulatees) and fulfil engagement requirements imposed by their political principals. Yet, a growing strand of research has paid more attention to how the communication of independent bodies actually targets or responds to the wider public. Research shows that although independent agencies are insulated from electoral pressures, they display communicative and even output responsiveness (Maor 2020; Gilad et al. 2015; Maor and Sulitzeanu‐Kenan 2016). Rather than changing policy choices, they adjust communication and activity levels in response to public perceptions and reputational pressures. Studies of central banks reveal that voluntary account-giving expands and becomes more audience-oriented under reputational stress (e.g., Moschella and Diodati 2020; Müller and Braun 2021). In such cases, communication is simplified and reframed around social and distributive impacts, reflecting efforts to sustain legitimacy and public trust. Against this background, the workshop examines patterns of accountability and responsiveness of independent agencies in contemporary democracies. It explores when and why stronger accountability emerges, focusing on the individual and contextual factors shaping the type and quality of parliamentary scrutiny – such as the salience and public visibility of agencies, the expertise of account holders, and reputational pressures from the surrounding environment. In an era of growing populism and politicization (Clift and Rosamond 2024), we also ask how vote-seeking representatives adapt their account-holding practices to attract media attention and electoral rewards. Turning to responsiveness, the workshop investigates the extent and conditions under which independent agencies’ communications and policy actions reflect wider public priorities. We expect factors like salience and reputational pressure, as well as threats from populist governments (Gavin and Manger 2022), to play a key role. Finally, we consider how agencies balance responsiveness to stakeholders with adherence to their mandate-related goals. By bridging insights from complementary yet so-far not so connected fields of agency accountability and policy and communicative responsiveness, the workshop will contribute to the scholarly debate about the position of governance by independent agencies in democratic systems, including reflections on the democratic embeddedness of the organizations, and how they navigate the current contestation and representational demands in contemporary democratic systems. Possible papers: Arnzen, C., Kaler, L., and Moffitt, S. "Subnational Independent Agencies: SELPAs and the Politics of Expertise in Special Education Governance" Bellodi, L., Morelli, M., Spenkuch, J., Teso, E., Vannoni, M. and Xu, G. “Personnel is Policy: Delegation and Political Misalignment in the Rulemaking Process” Maor, M. “Understanding Bureaucratic Reputational Collapse: Varieties, Dynamics, and Consequences” Masciandaro, D. and Moschella, M. Title to be confirmed Romelli, D., Farvaque, E. and Stanek, P. “Lame Duck Central Bankers” Scotto di Vettimo, M. and Koop, C. “Do societal priorities matter for the agenda of independent central banks?” van der Veer, R., Rauh, C. and Bertsou, E. “Preferences for representation and responsiveness in international bureaucracies: a survey experiment” References: Binder, S. (2017). Fed speak on main street: Central bank communication and household expectations. Journal of Macroeconomics, 52, 238–251. Brandsma, G. (2013). Controlling Comitology. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Clift, B. and Rosamond, B. (2024). Technocratic reason in hard times: the mobilisation of economic knowledge and the discursive politics of Brexit. New Political Economy, 29(6), 886-899. Collignon, S. and Diessner, S. (2016). The ECB’s monetary dialogue with the European Parliament: Efficiency and accountability during the Euro crisis? Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(6), 1296–1312. De Boer, T. (2023). Why do public agencies seek accountability? The role of audiences. Public Administration, 101(3): 865-883. Ferrara, F. M., Masciandaro, D., Moschella, M., and Romelli, D. (2021). Political voice on monetary policy: Evidence from the parliamentary hearings of the European Central Bank. European Journal of Political Economy, 74, 102143. Gavin, M. and Manger, M. (2022). Populism and de facto central bank independence. Comparative Political Studies, 56(8), 1189-1223. Gilad, S., Maor, M. and Bloom, P.B.-N. (2015). Organizational reputation, the content of public allegations, and regulatory communication. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(2), 451-478. Koop, C. (2011). Explaining the accountability of independent agencies: The importance of political salience. Journal of Public Policy, 31(2), 209–234. Koop, C. (2014). Theorizing and explaining voluntary accountability. Public Administration, 92(3), 565–581. Koop, C. and Scotto di Vettimo, M. (2023). How do the media scrutinise central banking? Evidence from the Bank of England. European Journal of Political Economy, 77, 102296. Koop, C. and Scotto di Vettimo, M. (2024). Non-majoritarian institutions, media coverage, and “reinforced accountability”. Governance, 37(2), 599-617. Maggetti, M. (2010). Legitimacy and accountability of independent regulatory agencies: A critical review. Living Reviews in Democracy, 2, 1-9. Maor, M. (2020). Strategic communication by regulatory agencies as a form of reputation management: A strategic agenda. Public Administration, 98(4): 1044-1055. Maor, M., and Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2016). Responsive change: Agency output response to reputational threats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 31-44. Matthews, F. (2020). Parliamentary scrutiny of executive patronage: The relationship between institutional norms, reputation and accountability. Public Administration, 98(3), 625-642. Miller, G.J. and Whitford, A.B. (2016). Above Politics: Bureaucratic Discretion and Credible Commitment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Moschella, M. and Diodati, N. (2020). Does politics drive conflict in central banks’ committees? Lifting the veil on the European Central Bank consensus. European Union Politics, 21(2), 183-203. Müller, M. and Braun, C. (2021). Guiding or following the crowd? Strategic communication as reputational and regulatory strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(4), 670-686. Rauh, C. (2023). Clear messages to the European public? The language of European Commission press releases 1985–2020. Journal of European Integration, 45(4):683–701. Rauh, C. and Van der Veer, R. (2024). Responsiveness. In Brandsma, G.-J., editor, Handbook on European Union Public Administration, pages 362–376. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Schillemans, T. and Busuioc, M. (2015). Predicting Public Sector Accountability: From Agency Drift to Forum Drift. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 191-215. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2013). Deliberating American monetary policy: A textual analysis. MIT Press. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2022). Deliberative Accountability in Parliamentary Committees. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Strøm K., Müller W.C., and Bergman T. (2003). Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Thatcher, M. (2002). Regulation after delegation: Independent regulatory agencies in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(6): 954–972. Tucker, P. (2018). Unelected Power: The Quest for Legitimacy in Central Banking and the Regulatory State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Vibert, F. (2007). The Rise of the Unelected: Democracy and the New Separation of Powers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

What is the unique role of government ministries in the policy process, and how is this role shaped? Much of public policy is designed, implemented, and evaluated within government ministries. As organizations, they play an important role in all aspects of the policy process: in developing policy proposals and programs, forwarding their adoption, implementing and evaluating their effectiveness and impact. They are also in constant interaction with other actors in the policy subsystem, including non-state actors, policy recipients and interest groups. Yet, our understanding of government ministries, as distinct units of analysis and objects of study, and as policy actors, remains limited: they are often studied as venues for policymaking, development and research (Herold et al, 2021; Neto et al, 2019); as trophies awarded to politicians and parties during government formation (Debus, 2008), or part of the broader “bureaucracy” - as platforms for a struggle between politicians and bureaucrats (Hustedt & Salomonsen, 2014). While some specific ministries gain more extensive attention in research because of their institutional power resources, such as Ministries of Finance or Ministries of Justice (Craig, 2020; Raudla et al 2021), the unique politics and logics of operation of other ministries, as related to their designated policy fields, is traditionally overlooked in policy research. Very recently, however, policy and bureaucratic politics research has begun to focus on ministries and their distinct policy, politics, and logics. This type of work draws on the assumption that different types of ministries (e.g., finance, welfare, foreign affairs) operate according to distinct sets of logics and politics which conditions how they approach policymaking (Garritzmann & Siderius, 2024, Jørgensen, 2025). What shapes these logics and politics are elements related to the specific policy field in the ministry’s responsibility; as well as the specific policy subsystem(s) with which it interacts. This includes the specific types of education and professional training of ministries’ public servants, as well as their associated professional networks. For example, training in social work or education is likely to instil in public servants a distinctly different normative orientation than that of those trained in law or economics, and still different from those with strong military or security training (see in this context: Abramovitz & Zelnick, 2018; Christensen & Mandelkern, 2022). It also includes the distinct sets of stakeholders with which ministries interact, including advocacy groups, target populations, regulated agencies, academics and media (Garritzmann & Siderius, 2024). These attributes are different from ministry to ministry (with some ministries sharing similar types of politics), creating variation relevant to the public policy process. Importantly, these logics and politics systematically shape not only the ministry’s tasks and mandates but also how and which type of policies are developed and implemented by the ministries: what is their distributive profile and the sets of values they express. Because different ministries operate according to different logics, politics, and sets of values, they are likely to demonstrate different policy preferences and apply different logics of policy goals, objectives and instruments (Garritzmann & Siderius, 2024). They are also likely to have a different perception of their roles in the policy process (Maron & Williams, 2023) , and consider and apply different approaches to outcomes measurement, network governance and information flows, and how they consider and use evidence and advice in policy making (Andersen & Pattyn, 2025; Maron & Benish, 2021, Jørgensen, 2025). Their ministerial logic, politics and perceived role might also shape how they respond to policy decisions made by elected officials or other policy actors, and whether and how they resist or mitigate their implementation (Mandelkren and Koreh, 2018; Maron & Williams, 2023). This accumulating evidence suggests that the specific attributes of government ministries are important to understand their role in all stages of the public policy process, and its influence and impact on policy outcomes. We need however to expand our knowledge of those relations. Several questions, further developed in the call for proposals, are important: how do distinct ministerial politics and logics emerge, how do they change over time, and how do they vary across context? What is the impact that they have on policy: policy process, choices, and outcomes? And how do they interact with one another? Abramovitz, M., & Zelnick, J. (2018). The logic of the market versus the logic of social work: Whither the welfare state? Social Work & Society, 16(2). https://ejournals.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/index.php/sws/article/view/562 Andersen, N. A., & Pattyn, V. (2025). The organisation of evaluations: the influence of the ministry of finance on evaluation systems. Evidence and Policy, 21(2), 206–228. https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000045 Christensen, J., & Mandelkern, R. (2022). The technocratic tendencies of economists in government bureaucracy. Governance, 35(1), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/GOVE.12578 Craig, M. P. (2020). ‘Treasury Control’and the British environmental state: The political economy of green development strategy in UK central government. New political economy, 25(1), 30-45. Debus, M. (2008). Office and Policy Payoffs in Coalition Governments. Party Politics, 14(5), 515–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068807088121 Herold, J., Liese, A., Busch, P. O., & Feil, H. (2021). Why national ministries consider the policy advice of international bureaucracies: Survey evidence from 106 countries. International Studies Quarterly, 65(3), 669-682. Hustedt, T., Kolltveit, K., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2017). Ministerial advisers in executive government: Out from the dark and into the limelight. Public Administration, 95(2), 299-311. Jørgensen, J. V. (2025). The differential impact of evidence types in policy decisions: comparing evidence priorities in employment and education ministries. Policy Studies, 46(5), 779-806. Mandelkern, R., & Koreh, M. (2018). Interrupting gradual institutional change: how ‘continuity agents’ have stalled and even reversed gradual welfare-state reforms in Israel. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(11), 1706–1725. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1336184 Maron, A., & Benish, A. (2021). Power and conflict in network governance: exclusive and inclusive forms of network administrative organizations. Public Management Review, 24(11), 1758–1778. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1930121 Maron, A., & Williams, J. W. (2023). Limits to the financialisation of the state: exploring obstructions to social impact bonds as a form of financialised statecraft in the UK, Israel, and Canada. New Political Economy, 28(6), 865–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2023.2196063 Neto, O. A., & Malamud, A. (2019). The policy-making capacity of foreign ministries in presidential regimes: a study of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, 1946–2015. Latin American Research Review, 54(4), 812-834.

1. General Objectives The workshop aims to explore how integrity can be strengthened through context-sensitive governance, historical consciousness, and social innovation. Historical consciousness emphasizes awareness of how past injustices, abuses of power, and systemic corruption shape contemporary values, institutions, and policy decisions, particularly amid the growing politicization of democracies across both the Global South and North. Integrating this awareness into anti-corruption strategies fosters ethical reflection, democratic accountability, and resilience. The workshop further seeks to highlight the mutual learning potential between the Global South and North contexts, exploring how experiences and innovations in one region can inform policy in another. By combining theoretical inquiry, empirical research, and practical policy perspectives, the panel aims to develop actionable insights for both scholars and practitioners working in governance, anti-corruption, and democratic reform. The overarching goal is to provide a multidimensional understanding of integrity as a process situated at the intersection of ethics, social innovation, and historical reflection, bridging past, present, and future in policy and practice. This approach conceptualizes integrity as a dynamic governance capability understood as an ongoing alignment of ethical principles, innovative action, and reflective learning that enables institutions to act consistently with shared values across time. It emphasizes integrity not as compliance, but as a continuous process of ethical adaptation and value-driven innovation in public policy and practice. The workshop is fundamental, innovative and timely to situate the discussion in contexts of crisis and vulnerability. It would allow us to explore the genesis of institutions (from all sectors) and the debate between the state-building agenda which usually focuses on the function of these institutions to stabilize contexts of violence, injustice, and poverty, on the one hand, and the anti-corruption agenda, which is often misunderstood and considered a strategy to solve multiple problems at once. 2. Research Questions The workshop addresses the following central questions: a. Corruption and Democratization - How do corruption dynamics evolve in fragile state contexts during and after democratic transitions? - How does systemic corruption interact and persist in democratic institutional settings? - What role does corruption play in the historical processes of democratization? b. Historical Consciousness and Integrity - How can societies use historical awareness to prevent the recurrence of abuses of power and corruption? - How can historical reflections inform the design of integrity policies and governance frameworks? - How do narratives of past corruption crises shape contemporary public trust and reform legitimacy across regions? - What role do civic and collective memory practices play in shaping ethical values, principles and norms? c. Social Innovation and Policy Design - How can social innovation enhance or hinder the transparency, participation, and policy effectiveness of integrity strategies? - How can civil society, community networks, and grassroots initiatives complement formal integrity mechanisms? - How can innovation be institutionalized in ways that respect context and inclusivity while promoting sustainable policy impacts? d. Global Learning, Policy Integration and Policy Transfer - How can lessons from the Global South inform anti-corruption and integrity policies in northern contexts, and vice versa? - How can anti-corruption, integrity, historical awareness, and social innovation be integrated into coherent governance strategies? - How can these approaches contribute to achieving SDG 16 and broader democratic resilience? 3. Scientific Relevance and Contribution This workshop contributes to debates in public policy, governance studies, anti-corruption research, and social innovation by offering a holistic and interdisciplinary perspective on integrity. It frames corruption as a systemic and historically embedded challenge rather than merely a result of moral failure, opportunity cost calculation, or technical weakness, and emphasizes solutions and emphasizes solutions that combine reflection and action beyond dichotomic patterns of corruption, drawing on evidence and lessons learned from political, economic, and social systems. By integrating South–North learning and policy transfer perspectives, the workshop aims at advancing a comparative understanding of how integrity-driven approaches can be contextualized, adapted, and scaled across diverse governance settings. 3.1 Historical Consciousness as a Governance ToolThe concept of historical consciousness extends remembrance culture into a globally relevant framework. By recognizing how past injustices, authoritarian practices, and governance failures shape contemporary institutional and civic norms, policymakers and practitioners can design integrity interventions that are historically informed and culturally sensitive. Historical consciousness becomes both a moral compass and a practical instrument, linking lessons from the past to present policy choices and democratic reform. 3.2 Social Innovation as a Policy MechanismThe workshop highlights the role of social innovation in anti-corruption and integrity promotion. Participatory governance, civic technology, and collaborative accountability initiatives illustrate how innovative practices can complement formal institutional frameworks. These approaches empower citizens, mobilize communities, and create experimental spaces for ethical and adaptive policymaking. Social innovation serves as a bridge between historical awareness and actionable policy, allowing creative solutions to emerge from local contexts while being scalable across regions. 3.3 Comparative and Transnational LearningA key contribution is the focus on South–North and North–South learning. Considering the allegations regarding the origins and political uses of the anti-corruption movement and how it has become a hollow discourse and a tool for reproducing asymmetrical power dynamics, the workshop seeks to explore the lessons from adaptive governance, community-based accountability, and resilience strategies under high-corruption conditions present in the Global South, while also considering the historical process of the Global North that provides tested institutional frameworks, digital monitoring tools, and cross-border collaboration mechanisms. By facilitating a reciprocal exchange of knowledge, the panel encourages policymakers to integrate context-specific insights with global best practices, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and legitimacy of anti- corruption initiatives. 3.4 Integration with Sustainable Development GoalsFraming integrity and anti-corruption within the SDG agenda situates these efforts within broader societal and development priorities. SDG 16 emphasizes accountable, inclusive, and transparent institutions, highlighting the relevance of historically informed and socially innovative policies. By connecting integrity and historical consciousness to these goals, the panel underscores how anti-corruption strategies contribute to sustainable, just, and resilient governance systems. 3.5 Methodological InnovationThe panel welcomes contributions employing diverse methodologies, including historical analysis, comparative case studies, participatory research, policy evaluation, and social innovation assessment. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a rich understanding of how integrity, historical awareness, and innovation intersect to produce actionable governance insights. 4. Expected Outcomes The workshop aims to deepen the understanding of integrity as a multidimensional phenomenon that connects corruption, social innovation, and historical consciousness. It seeks to generate policy-relevant insights that strengthen democratic institutions and anti- corruption measures across diverse contexts. By fostering mutual learning between actors from the Global South and North, the project emphasizes adaptive and context- sensitive approaches. Additionally, it aims to identify best practices and research gaps that can inform future collaborations, joint publications, and research networks. Ultimately, it strives to link historical reflection with actionable policy tools, demonstrating how remembrance and innovation can work together to reinforce institutional integrity. It will contribute to policy debates integrating historical consciousness into public integrity and anti-corruption strategies while leveraging social innovation to promote participatory, inclusive, and adaptive governance. A major goal is to emphasize cross-regional learning to develop context-sensitive and evidence-based anti-corruption policies and aligns integrity-focused governance strategies with SDG 16 and broader goals for democratic sustainability. By linking historical awareness, social innovation, and cross-regional learning, the panel bridges research and policy, providing insights that are academically rigorous and practically relevant for governments, international organizations, and civil society. References Appiah, P.B.; Grimm, H.M. (2025). Landscape of social innovation research in the global south: trends and implications for future research. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-07-2024-0111. Arib, E.; Grimm, H.M.; Pimienta Gonzalez, C.; Rebai, A.M. (2025). Corruption Research. Understanding Ten Core Challenges. Research Paper. Bittle, S.; Frauley, J.; Snider, L. (2024). Critical Perspectives on Anti-Corruption(ism): The Corruption of Anti-Corruption(ism). Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime 5 (2), 83–84. DOI: 10.1177/2631309X241252501. Bratsis, P. (2014). Political Corruption in the Age of Transnational Capitalism. Hist Mater 22 (1), 105–128. DOI: 10.1163/1569206X-12341334. Bukovansky, M. (2006). The hollowness of anti-corruption discourse. Review of International Political Economy 13 (2), 181–209. DOI: 10.1080/09692290600625413. Fritzen, S. (2005). Beyond “political will”. How institutional context shapes the implementation of anticorruption policies. Policy and Society, 24(3), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449- 4035(05)70061-8 Galtung, F. (2005). Measuring the immeasurable: boundaries and functions of (macro) corruption indices. In Measuring Corruption, edited by: Galtung, F. and Sampford, C. London: Ashgate. Johnsøn, J. (2016). Anti-corruption strategies in fragile states. Theory and practice in aid agencies. Chelthenham UK, Northhampton Massachusetts: Edward Elgar. Peters, B. G., & Fontaine, G. (2025). Problem Structuring in Anti-Corruption Policies. Public Integrity, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2025.2525675. Pimienta, C.; Nieto Morales, F.; Gómez-Álvare, G. (2025): Politicization and public appointments: An Introduction. In Fernando Nieto, Calep Pimienta, David Gómez-Álvarez (Eds.): The Politics of Public Appointments in Latin America: who holds the keys? [S.l.]: Palgrave Macmillan. Rabbi, M. F., Park, Y., Aggarwal, J., & Sabharwal, M. (2025). Effect of Ethical Leadership on Affective Organizational Commitment and the Mediating Role of Ethical Environment. Public Integrity, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2025.2490406 Rose, R. & Peiffer, C. (2019). Understanding Corruption in Different Contexts. In: Grimm, H.M. (eds) Public Policy Research in the Global South. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-06061-9_3 Vivona, R., Demircioglu, M.A. & Cinar, E. (2025). Reverse knowledge spillover theory of public sector entrepreneurship. J Technol Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-025-10220-y Wedel, J.R. (2015): High Priests and the Gospel of Anti-Corruption. Challenge 58 (1), 4–22. Available online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/26772892.

Public policy evaluation is a set of theories, methods and research techniques whose essential objective is to improve public policies through the feedback it produces for various policy makers. Carol Weiss defines evaluation as ‘the systematic assessment of the operations and/or the outcomes of a programme or policy, ... as a means of contributing to the improvement of the program or policy’. The analysis of the interests informing policy is part of policy studies, as much as the interaction with politics is a central aim of policy evaluation. Interaction with clients and policy makers is crucial for improving public interventions. This implies, therefore, that evaluation does not simply focus on technical approaches based on ontologies or techniques, but must also strengthen the basis of judgements. It is about influencing policy ideas. In this regard, the issue of the relationship between evaluation, evaluators and policy makers is an important area for discussion and development, as is the issue of approaches that can foster interaction. Various perspectives have been developed from the debate. First, the uses of evaluation perspective tend to focus on the various ways in which institutions and policy makers use evaluation, as well as analysing the factors that favour and inhibit one or another use (Weiss 1979; Chelimski 1997; Furubo & Stame 2019; Kupiec & al. 2025). Second, processes that stem from the institutionalisation of evaluation are also relevant. This is the idea that the processes that have extended from the formalisation of evaluation in the government apparatus and parliaments and in private organisations and NGOs involved in public policy have tended to determine the form and questions that define evaluation relevance (Stockmann & Meyer Eds. 2020; Stockmann, Zandniapour & Meyer Eds. 2022; Ben Brik Ed. 2025). Third, over the last decade, both the public policy and program evaluation literature have engaged in intense debate on evidence-based (and informed-based) policy making, which has concentrated on methodological concerns, but also the behaviour of policy makers. In recent years, this debate has focused on the relationship between science and public policy decisions, as well as on the post-truth era and the influence of social media and “fake news” in political struggles (Cartwright & Hardie 2012; Head 2016; Brouselle et al. 2024). Fourth, there is another ongoing debate that centres on whether evaluation should play a primarily technical or political role. Those who view it as a technical endeavour are often linked to positivist or post-positivist traditions — the “truth seekers.” But other perspectives take the opposite perspective arguing that evaluation and evaluators have an inherently political and advocacy function: to act as a constant reminder of the importance of democratic values and social inclusion in public life (Greene, 1997; Stame 2006; Dahler-Larsen 2011). Finally, consistent with the initial question is the debate on policy advice and policy learning, which are also relevant to evaluators: the idea that the processes through which recommendations to decision makers are not only developed (and by whom), but also delivered and effective in triggering policy or programmatic learning (Eichbaum & Shaw 2020; Hustedt & Lodge 2022; Schmidt 2007; Varone et al, 2023). For many in the evaluation use literature, this is the most significant contribution of evaluation.

This workshop aims to deepen the theoretical and empirical understanding of the capacities required to design, implement, and transform public policies under conditions of complexity. Rooted in Latin American perspectives yet in dialogue with global debates, it seeks to examine how policy capacity and capacity building interact at individual, organizational, and systemic levels to enable innovation, legitimacy, and resilience in public action.The concept of policy capacity has been defined as the ability to mobilize resources to make collective choices and allocate them strategically to public ends (Painter & Pierre, 2005). Distinct from administrative capacity and state capacity, policy capacity operates at their intersection, linking decision-making, efficiency, and legitimacy. The concept has been widely adopted across diverse fields of public administration, governance, and policy design (Mukherjee et al., 2021; Peters, 2015; Capano & Elias, 2025; da Cunha et al., 2023).However, its conceptualization varies considerably. Cameron and Evans (2024, p. 2) illustrate this ambiguity by noting that a simple Google Scholar search for “policy capacity” yields more than 17,000 results, reflecting a broader challenge in the literature: the lack of consensus on how to operationalize and measure policy capacity (Wu, Ramesh & Howlett, 2015). Definitions range from functional assets for decision-making and resource allocation (Painter & Pierre, 2005) to frameworks that disaggregate its key components and interactions, distinguishing analytical, operational, and political capacities across three levels of analysis (Wu, Ramesh & Howlett, 2015, 2018). Other authors emphasize its role as a collection of skills and resources, or competences and capabilities, necessary for performing policy functions (Gleeson et al., 2009, 2011), or focus on institutional arrangements and governance legitimacy (Cameron & Evans, 2024). More dynamic perspectives conceptualize policy capacity as a process shaped by governance supply and demand, integrating administrative capital, political management, and stakeholder expectations (Brenton et al., 2023). Complementary approaches, such as place-based policy (Neumark et al., 2014; Lu et al, 2019; Giest, 2023), have emphasized spatially targeted policies designed to support transformational development and address long-term societal challenges. Recent contributions have advanced a more holistic understanding of policy capacity by expanding the Policy Capacity Framework (PCF) through two additional dimensions: deontological capacity, referring to ethical commitment, integrity, and democratic values; and human capacity, encompassing empathy, relational skills, and intercultural understanding (Muñoz-del-Campo, 2023, 2025). This perspective underline that public action requires not only technical competences but also the ability to build trust, foster dialogue across diversity, and sustain legitimacy in turbulent contexts.Even though policy capacity is widely recognized as a key determinant of policy success, influencing both decision-making and implementation (Wu et al., 2018a, 2018c), surprisingly little attention has been paid to its connection with education and training (Pal & Clark, 2016; Cameron, 2022). This gap underscores the need to build a bridge between policy capacity and capacity building.Capacity building has emerged as a broader concept encompassing professional training, postgraduate education, institutional programs, and initiatives led by both state and non-state actors (Coghil et al 2009). In Latin America, however, systematic research on how capacity building shapes policy capacity remains limited, despite its crucial role in strengthening public sectors marked by inequality, institutional fragility, and strong transnational influences (Dezalay & Garth, 2002). Addressing this gap requires identifying not only what capacities exist, but also how they are cultivated, combined, and applied to foster innovation and adaptive governance.This perspective contributes to broadening the definition of policy capacity beyond technical or functional aspects. It also aligns with Wu et al.’s (2018, p. 3) observation of a persistent gap in the literature between “what can be done with policy capacity” and “what constitutes policy capacity, or how existing and potential resources and skills can be combined to augment it.” Understanding these distinctions is key to strengthening policy capacity in public administration—particularly in Latin America, where institutional resilience and the effectiveness of public policy remain pressing challenges. The workshop addresses the following research questions:· How should policy capacity and capacity building be defined, measured, and operationalized in contemporary contexts, particularly in Latin America?· What combinations of capacities are most relevant for innovation and resilience in public action under conditions of turbulence and polycrisis?· How are capacities distributed and articulated across individual, organizational, and systemic levels, and what tensions emerge in their interaction?· To what extent do capacity-building programs (e.g., postgraduate programs, civil service training, non-state initiatives) contribute to strengthening policy capacity in practice?· How do sectoral challenges—such as education, climate change, or digital governance/AI—demand different configurations of capacities?· What comparative insights can be drawn from studying capacity development across countries and regions, and how can Latin American experiences inform global debates? The scientific relevance of this workshop lies in three key dimensions:Theoretical contribution: By integrating policy capacity and capacity building, the workshop seeks to refine and expand conceptual frameworks for studying public action. It moves beyond functionalist accounts by including ethical, human, affective, and relational dimensions of capacity, thereby addressing the limitations of the existing PCF and contributing to its expansion.Empirical contribution: The workshop focuses on Latin America—a region where policy capacity and capacity-building initiatives face unique challenges due to inequality, institutional fragility, and transnational pressures. Yet it is also a fertile ground for innovation and experimentation. By mapping and analyzing capacity-building practices, the workshop aims to generate data that are both regionally grounded and globally relevant.Practical contribution: Understanding capacities is not only an academic exercise but a prerequisite for strengthening governance and democracy. By examining what competences are required both to “do things right” and to “do the right things” (Geva-May et al., 2008), the workshop contributes to identifying actionable strategies for professional training, institutional reform, and cross-sector collaboration.Expected Outcomes: The workshop will provide a platform for scholars to share conceptual and empirical research, foster comparative analysis, and advance collective outputs—such as a special issue or an edited volume—that strengthen the bridge between policy capacity and capacity building, advancing a dialogue between Latin American experiences and global scholarship. Brenton, S., Baekkeskov, E., and Hannah, A. (2023). Policy capacity: evolving theory and missing links, Policy Studies, 44(3): 297-315. Cameron, B. T., Evans, B. (2024) Policy capacity research: An overview and bibliography of the international literature, 1978 to 2023, International Review of Public Policy, 6(1): 110-141. Capano, G., De Oliveira, V. E. (2025). Do policy capacities matter for federal policy design? Evidence from the implementation of three social policies in Brazil. Public Administration and DevelopmentCoghill, K., Donohue, R., Holland, P., Richardson, A. & Neesham, C. (2009) Capacity Building for New Parliamentarians: Survey of Orientation and Induction Programmes, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 15:4, 521-534Giest, S. (2023, 15 de septiembre). Policy capacity mechanisms for addressing complex, place-based sustainability challenges. OECD-EC High-Level Workshop Series: Place-Based Policies for the Future.Lu, H., & Liu, M., Song, W. (2022). Place-based policies, government intervention, and regional innovation: Evidence from China's Resource-Exhausted City program. Resources Policy, 75(C).Mukherjee, I., Coban, M.K. & Bali, A.S. Policy capacities and effective policy design: a review. Policy Sciences 54, 243–268 (2021).Munoz-del-Campo, N. (2023) ‘Comparative Analysis of Latin American MPP and MPA Program Competences and Capabilities Using the Policy Capacity Framework: Discovering Deontological and Human Capacities’. Presented at the International Conference of Public Policy, International Public Policy Association (IPPA), Toronto, Canada.Munoz-del-Campo, N. (2025). A conceptual framework for understanding parliamentary skills and competences: bridging public policy and legislative studies. Parliamentary Affairs.Neumark, D., Simpson, H. (2014) Place-Based Policies. NBER Working Paper No. w20049.Painter, M., and Pierre, J. (2005). Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.Wu X, Ramesh M and 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 and Ramesh M (Eds.) (2018). Policy Capacity and Governance. Assessing Governmental Competences and Capabilities in Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan

General objectives Evidence-based policy, also known as EBPM, has become a common practice in many areas of public policy. A key aspect of EBPM is that evidence is generated through policy evaluations, and the results must be relevant to the policy process. However, it is rarely clear which facts qualify as relevant evidence, and this remains a contentious issue in policymaking. Evidence is generated through evaluations whose results must be relevant to policymaking, yet it is often unclear which facts qualify as relevant evidence. Even when policy actors agree on appropriate forms of evidence, questions remain about how evaluation findings should be used. Such evidence can serve instrumental, conceptual, symbolic or procedural purposes (Saunders, 2012). Its use depends on legal requirements and institutional practices in specific contexts. We assume that evaluation evidence use is a political process shaped by institutional frameworks, stakeholder preferences, and configurations. The institutional, political and normative context of a policy area affects both evidence use and its political acceptance (Højlund, 2014), as well as issue polarisation (Contandriopoulos & Brousselle, 2012) and prevailing views of valid evidence (King & Alkin, 2019). The workshop examines contextual conditions, actor preferences and practices of evidence use in evidence-based policymaking. It will be held online, combining paper presentations with small-group discussions and a World Café–style plenary to promote interactive exchange. Research questions The institutional and political dimensions of evidence use give rise to many questions. Finding the answers to these questions should make evaluation-based evidence more useful for the policy process (Patton, 2020). The questions that arise concern the utilisation and impact of evidence, the institutional design and governance, the political dimension, methodological innovations and normative contexts of evidence. This workshop aims to address – but does not limit to- the following questions: Under what conditions is evidence effectively integrated into policy-making processes? How do instrumental, symbolic, and conceptual uses of evidence manifest across different policy fields? What role do power dynamics, institutional settings, and stakeholder interests play in shaping evidence use? Which institutional structures foster or hinder evidence-based decision-making? Which models of “evidence governance” have proven effective internationally, and what explains their success? Is EBPM best understood as a technocratic ideal or as a political negotiation process? What strategies do political actors employ to align evidence with their narratives and policy goals? How can qualitative, participatory, and local forms of knowledge be systematically integrated into EBPM? And which types of methods or approaches tend to be overrepresented in EBPM? What normative challenges arise regarding justice, representation, and inclusion in evidence practices? Context and State-of-the Art The proposed topic forms part of the practice and research of evidence-based policy making (EBPM), a long-established concept in public policy (Cairney, 2016). Yet EBPM faces persistent implementation obstacles. Expertise and expert knowledge are increasingly questioned (Eyal, 2019), while EBPM’s internal logic and processes are criticised (Straßheim, 2024; Straßheim & Kettunen, 2014). Different stakeholders recognise different empirical facts as evidence, creating epistemic resistance. Evaluation research has shown, for instance, that ‘qualitative methods’ still face challenges of adequate reporting standards, which in turn affect their usability for many contexts (Bodenstein and Kemmerling 2025). From a sociological perspective, evidence use has been examined as organisational ‘evidence culture’ (Bandola-Gill et al., 2024), as an object of politicisation (Smith et al., 2025), and within Policy Advisory Systems (Craft & Wilder, 2017). Further key contributions to the use of evidence have been made by evaluation research, which is often referred to as 'evaluation use'. Influential works on this topic have been published by King & Alkin (2019) Vedung (2021) and Patton (2020), among others, and demonstrate how evaluation evidence can be utilised. However, the specific perspective of public policy research remains underexplored. We therefore invite contributions that illuminate the context of evidence use, the role of governance and institutional design, actor strategies for adapting evidence, and the normative challenges of evidence-based policymaking. Hypotheses The following preliminary working hypotheses can be formulated for each of the dimensions listed for the questions. These hypotheses will serve as a framework for the workshop, and will then be reflected upon, expanded, and refined throughout the discussions held in the workshop. H1: Institutional structures and evidence use Effective evidence integration correlates with institutional arrangements that reconcile standardised procedures with plural forms of evidence. H2: Politicisation and symbolic use Greater politicisation in a policy field increases the likelihood of instrumental or symbolic evidence use. H3: Epistemic pluralism and legitimacy Including epistemic pluralism (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, local knowledge, and civic epistemologies) in evidence-based policy increases its perceived legitimacy in complex policy areas, but can also lead to backlash in those areas where evidence monocultures dominate. H4: Process innovations in EBPM Iterative, participatory and adaptive EBPM practices foster continuous evidence integration, promoting learning and long-term use. H5: Normative dimension of evidence use The extent to which evidence processes incorporate normative concerns of justice, inclusion and representation has a positive influence on the legitimacy and societal acceptance of evidence-based policies, regardless of their instrumental effectiveness, but it can also trigger backlash and polarization. Papers The workshop welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions that tackle from different perspectives the question of evidence use in policy processes. Theoretical papers may address the conceptual foundations of evidence use, the role of policy contexts, institutional and political constraints, the influence of policy networks and circles in evidence-based policymaking, or the normative dimensions underpinning the mobilization of evidence. Empirical contributions may be qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods in nature and may present case studies on this topic. Comparative studies are also welcome. Agenda The workshop aims to unite scientific and practical perspectives on evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) and develop a joint research agenda. After paper presentations, participants will work in small groups on clusters of hypotheses relating to institutions, politics, knowledge diversity, innovation, and normative dimensions. They will analyse challenges, refine hypotheses, and discuss implications. Results will be synthesised in a final plenary identifying cross-cutting issues and priorities. In a concluding co-creation phase, based on the World Café method, topics for a special issue or edited volume will be elaborated. The objective extends beyond the production of a special issue or edited volume: it is also to continue our cooperation in the long term in order to have a scientific and practical impact and advance long-term research on evidence use in EBPM. Prospects for publication in a book, journal special issue, or dossier We intend to publish the papers from this workshop as a special issue in a visible journal to initiate and encourage further research and debate on this topic. Our preferred publication medium is the International Review of Public Policy. With its strong interdisciplinary focus and broad readership, the journal is well-suited to bring together public policy and evaluation perspectives. Alternatively, an evaluation journal could be considered, such as Evaluation. References Bandola-Gill, J., Andersen, N. A., Leng, R., Pattyn, V., & Smith, K. E. (2024). A matter of culture? Conceptualizing and investigating “Evidence Cultures” within research on evidence-informed policymaking. Policy and Society, 43(4), 397–413. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae036 Bodenstein, T., & Kemmerling, A. (2025). Taking Stock of Qualitative Methods of Evaluation: A Study of Practices and Quality Criteria. Evaluation Review, 0193841X251370426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X251370426 Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4 Contandriopoulos, D., & Brousselle, A. (2012). Evaluation models and evaluation use. Evaluation, 18(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389011430371 Craft, J., & Wilder, M. (2017). Catching a Second Wave: Context and Compatibility in Advisory System Dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12133 Eyal, G. (2019). The crisis of expertise. Polity Press. Højlund, S. (2014). Evaluation use in the organizational context – changing focus to improve theory. Evaluation, 20(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013516053 King, J. A., & Alkin, M. C. (2019). The Centrality of Use: Theories of Evaluation Use and Influence and Thoughts on the First 50 Years of Use Research. American Journal of Evaluation, 40(3), 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018796328 Patton, M. Q. (2020). Evaluation Use Theory, Practice, and Future Research: Reflections on the Alkin and King AJE Series. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(4), 581–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214020919498 Saunders, M. (2012). The use and usability of evaluation outputs: A social practice approach. Evaluation, 18(4), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389012459113 Smith, K. E., Andersen, N. A., & Pattyn, V. (2025). Learning through comparison when studying evidence and policy. Evidence & Policy, 21(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000051 Straßheim, H. (2024). A world of evidence: The global spread and silent politics of evidence cultures. Policy and Society, 43(4), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae029 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. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514X13990433991320 Vedung, E. (2021). The Twelve-Part Typology of Evaluation Uses. Zeitschrift Für Evaluation, 2021(1), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.31244/zfe.2021.01.05

This workshop explores how these core institutional differences shape the translation of policy into practice. In authoritarian systems, the absence of free and fair multiparty elections weakens mechanisms of accountability and alters incentives for bureaucrats and policymakers. Control over information—through censorship, propaganda, and surveillance—affects how policies are framed, communicated, and received by citizens. Likewise, restrictions on collective action and civil society narrow the channels through which feedback, contestation, and policy learning can occur. In contrast, democratic systems rely more heavily on openness, deliberation, and participation, yet also face challenges of polarization, information overload, and fragmented accountability. We welcome both qualitative and quantitative studies, as well as conceptual and comparative contributions on any policy area. The expected outcome is to broaden the scope of policy process research beyond democratic contexts, identify underexplored mechanisms—information control, constrained participation, and bureaucratic incentives—and foster a lasting network of scholars studying policy implementation across political systems. This workshop contributes to a more global and inclusive understanding of how governance works in practice. The workshop seeks to deepen understanding of how policy implementation operates under different political systems by focusing on three interrelated objectives: · Information and Communication:To examine how varying levels of transparency, media control, and information flow shape the framing, communication, and monitoring of public policies across political systems. · Participation and Collective Action:To analyze how the presence or restriction of civic engagement, association, and protest influences policy compliance, feedback mechanisms, and the perceived legitimacy of governing institutions. · Appointments, Elections, and IncentivesTo investigate how systems for selecting and rewarding political and administrative elites—through appointments, elections, or party structures—affect bureaucratic discretion, loyalty, and accountability in policy implementation. Research questions Research questions to be discussed in the workshop include, but are not limited to: · How do differences in access to information, media freedom, and censorship shape the framing, communication, and enforcement of public policies? · In what ways do constraints on political competition and civic organization influence bureaucratic discretion, compliance, and policy adaptation? · How do policymakers and bureaucrats learn and adjust in contexts with limited transparency or restricted feedback from citizens and non-state actors? · What role do informal networks, intermediaries, or digital platforms play in compensating for (or reinforcing) limitations on pluralism and participation? · How do implementation practices in more centralized political systems differ from those in open, pluralistic ones—and what can these differences teach us about state capacity and responsiveness? · What methodological and ethical challenges do researchers face when studying implementation processes in environments with censorship, surveillance, or restricted access to data? We welcome both qualitative and quantitative papers, as well as mixed-method and conceptual approaches. Contributions may focus on specific policy areas—such as environmental regulation, health, digital governance—or offer comparative analyses across countries and regions. Hypotheses Hypotheses to be developed and tested in the workshop include, but are not limited to: · Where information is less available, ambiguity is reduced in policy processes as there are fewer competing ways to think about phenomenon in the public discourse. · There is a positive correlation between political competition and bureaucratic discretion, where reduced competition means elected officials have less reliance on bureaucrats to navigate ambiguity at the street-level. · As transparency becomes obstructed, policy learning across systems is reduced, and bureaucrats or policymakers must rely more heavily on their own experiences as they navigate how to satisfy various stakeholders. · Implementation practices in open, pluralistic systems are more flexible and innovative, while those in centralized systems are less responsive to political shifts. Scientific Relevance and Expected Impact This workshop will broaden the scope of policy process research beyond democracies, integrating insights from authoritarian contexts. Moreover, it will also identify new mechanisms—information control, constrained participation, and elite incentives—that shape implementation but remain underexplored in mainstream theories. And finally, the workshop will contribute to methodological guidance for scholars working under restricted access to data (Ahram and Goode, 2016; Allam, 2025), offering strategies for safe and ethical research practices. The workshop will create a lasting international research network linking scholars from different regions and political systems. It will support early-career researchers, especially those based in or studying restrictive environments, through mentorship and knowledge exchange. Building on the insights developed during the workshop, the chairs plan to develop a special issue for submission to a leading public policy journal. This publication will synthesize comparative findings, advance conceptual debates on implementation across political systems (Sætren and Radlick, 2025), and extend the visibility of this emerging research agenda. At the same time, the workshop will generate comparative insights that inform practitioners and international organizations working across regime types about realistic expectations for policy transfer and cooperation. References Ahram, A. I., & Goode, J. P. (2016). Researching authoritarianism in the discipline of democracy. Social Science Quarterly, 97(4), 834-849. Allam, N. (2025). “Like Us, but Not Quite Us”: Researching Gender Politics in Autocratic Contexts. Perspectives on Politics, 23(2), 705-716. Capano, G. (2025). Policy implementation and policy instruments: The underdeveloped dimensions of the four “political” American policy process theories. A Western European perspective. European Policy Analysis, 11(2), 230-253. Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., Kroenig, M., Lindberg, S. I., McMann, K., Paxton, P., Semetko, H. A., Skaaning, S., Staton, J., Teorell, J., & A. Semetko, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton and Jan Teorell. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: A new approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247–267. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. John Wiley and Sons. Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. Yale University Press. Fowler, L. (2023). Democratic Policy Implementation in an Ambiguous World. Glasius, M. (2018). What authoritarianism is… and is not: A practice perspective. International Affairs, 94(3), 515–533. Glasius, M., De Lange, M., Bartman, J., Dalmasso, E., Lv, A., Del Sordi, A., ... & Ruijgrok, K. (2018). Research, ethics and risk in the authoritarian field. Springer Nature. Lührmann, A., Tannenberg, M., & Lindberg, S. I. (2018). Regimes of the World (RoW): Opening New Avenues for the Comparative Study of Political Regimes. Working Paper Center for Systemic Peace, 6(1), 2183–2463. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214 Nord, M., Angiolillo, F., Good God, A., & Lindberg, S. I. (2025). State of the world 2024: 25 years of autocratization–democracy trumped?. Democratization, 32(4), 839-864. Sager, F., Mavrot, C., & Keiser, L. R. (Eds.). (2024). Handbook of public policy implementation. Edward Elgar Publishing. Van den Dool, A., & Schlaufer, C. (2024). Policy process theories in autocracies: Key observations, explanatory power, and research priorities. Review of Policy Research, 41(6), 865-891.

Rationale This workshop investigates how higher education institutions (HEIs) function as dynamic policy actors in advancing Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), functioning as laboratories for institutional innovation and systematic change, not merely as sites of knowledge tranmission. ESD’s transformative potential has increasingly gained traction within HEIs, which serve as critical arenas for knowledge co-creation, civic engagement, and systemic change. Building on global frameworks like UN SDG 4.7 and national strategies such as Germany’s National Action Plan, which outlines 349 actionable recommendations for embedding ESD across all education sectors, this workshop addresses the persistent gap between high-level policy ambition and on-the-ground institutional practice. Central to this transformation are evolving instruments that blur the boundaries between teaching, research, operations, and community engagement. Service learning is emerging as a powerful pedagogical approach that connects academic inquiry with real-world sustainability challenges through collaborative partnerships beyond the campus. Student-led micro-projects (agile, experimental, and often interdisciplinary) act as incubators for policy innovation and civic agency. At the institutional level, whole-institution approaches seek to embed sustainability across governance structures, campus operations, curricula, and research agendas, moving beyond siloed initiatives toward systemic change. Supporting these efforts, Green Offices for instance are increasingly serving as strategic hubs that coordinate action, translate global sustainability commitments into local practice, and advocate for institutional accountability. Yet these developments remain under-theorized in public policy scholarship, leaving a critical gap in our understanding of how education institutions function as sustainability governance actors. Objectives The objectives of this workshop are threefold: Theoretical: To examine conceptual frameworks linking ESD with public policy processes, especially policy design, implementation, and evaluation, in ways that account for power, equity, and multi-level governance. Empirical:To showcase and compare original research on ESD policy interventions across both the Global North and South contexts, identifying conditions for success, barriers, and unintended consequences. Practical:To co-develop actionable insights for policymakers, educators, and civil society on how to embed ESD meaningfully into education systems and other SDG-related areas. Hypotheses: We anticipate that workshop contributions will test and refine the following working hypotheses: H1:Institutional governance structures shape ESD implementation outcomes. Strategies such as whole-institution approaches that integrate sustainability across governance, operations, curricula, and research demonstrate greater systemic impact than siloed initiatives, but face distinct challenges in navigating tensions between managerial efficiency and transformative learning. H2:Intermediary mechanisms amplify policy translation across scales. Instruments such as Green Offices and similar coordinating structures enhance HEIs' capacity to translate international sustainability commitments (SDGs, national action plans) into campus-level practice, but their effectiveness depends on institutional positioning and resource allocation and digital literacy. H3:Pedagogical innovations function as policy experimentation sites. Service learning and student-led micro-projects serve as laboratories for testing sustainability interventions and building civic agency, yet their influence on institutional strategy varies by governance culture and requires critical examination of power dynamics and reciprocity and the role of EdTech in mediating community-university partnerships (e.g., virtual collaboration tools, digital storytelling, participatory mapping). H4:Multi-level policy coherence enhances transformative potential. ESD initiatives that explicitly connect campus practice to urban sustainability plans, national climate strategies, and international frameworks that are open facilitated by open-data platforms demonstrate greater policy influence than those confined to educational discourse alone. These hypotheses will be probed through comparative case studies, institutional analysis, and mixed-methods evaluations across diverse geographical and governance contexts. Workshop Theme This workshop is firmly grounded in the theme of policy implementation, examining how global and national ESD commitments are translated, adapted, or contested within HEI through governance structures, intermediary mechanisms, and pedagogical practices. It addresses implementation challenges including capacity, coherence, institutional agency, and the role of technology in bridging policy ambition and practice. Scientific Contributions Few of our own substantive contributions to the critical discourse in the field of ESD include a series of interdisciplinary investigations that problematize existing epistemological frameworks and interrogate the complex intersections between governance mechanisms, transformative pedagogical approaches as well as challenges digitalisation. Hollstein, B. (2025). The Economy and Democracy as a Way of Living. How to Create Democratic Attitudes Within Economic Ethics. In M. G. Festl (Ed.), John Dewey and Contemporary Challenges to Democratic Education. Routledge Hollstein, B. & Bokhari, H. (2025). Gelingensbedingungen für eine praxisorientierte BNE. Service Learning mit Unternehmen. In W. Leal (Ed.), Innovative Ansätze für die Nachhaltigkeitslehre in der Hochschulbildung. Spektrum (accepted for publication). Hollstein, B., Tziminadis, J. & Schrage, P. (2024). ‘Learning by Doing’in Higher Education. Empirical Insights into Education for Sustainable Development. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos em Educação (RIAEE), Araraquara v, 19, n. esp. 1, e024063, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.21723/riaee. v19iesp.1.18414 Hollstein, B. (2024): Learning by Doing – Gelingende Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung mit problemorientierten und situierten Lehr-Lern-Arrangements. In V. Wesselak (Ed.), Tagungsband: 7. Regenerative Energietechnik Konferenz in Nordhausen, 08.-09. Februar 2024. (pp. 95–114). Hochschule Nordhausen. Hollstein, B. (2024a). Nachhaltigkeit und Demokratie als Gegenstand derHochschulbildung. In K. Hafez & S. Frank & B. Hollstein & D. Kimmich & S. Tänzer, Demokratie, Transformation und Nachhaltigkeit (pp. 57-72). Berlin: Frank & Timme. Ramdey, K., & Bokhari, H. (2022). Digital storytelling and ICTs for education to foster sustainable development. In Lecture notes in networks and systems (pp. 459–466). doi:10.1007/978-981-16-5987-4_46 Hollstein, B. & Singer-Brodowski, M. (2015). Qualitätsentwicklung von BNE in der Erfurter Bildungslandschaft. In R. Fischbach, N. Kolleck, G. de Haan (Hg.), Auf dem Weg zu nachhaltigen Bildungslandschaften. Lokale Netzwerke erforschen und gestalten (147-168). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Expected Impact on Public Policy Research and Practice Theoretical Contribution:The workshop will advance public policy scholarship by: - Repositioning HEIs as policy actors rather than merely policy recipients, contributing to ESD and institutional theory and multi-level governance literature. - Examine digitalization as a dimension of sustainability governance, analyzing how ICTs shape policy learning, accountability, and participation in ESD, while interrogating risks of exclusion, and epistemic homogenization. - Developing an implementation framework that accounts for how global sustainability commitments translate through national strategies to institutional practice, addressing the persistent gap between policy ambition and ground-level action. - Integrating insights from sustainability transitions research, policy implementation theory, and governance studies to theorize how educational institutions function as sites of policy innovation and systemic changeChallenging technocratic assumptions by foregrounding questions of power, equity, and democratic deliberation in sustainability governance within HEIs Empirical Contribution:Participants will present original comparative research examining: - How specific mechanisms (Green Offices, service learning partnerships, micro-projects, whole-institution frameworks) function as policy instruments in diverse institutional and national contexts. - Implementation dynamics across North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia, enabling cross-regional learning about governance models, stakeholder configurations, and contextual adaptation. - The relationship between institutional governance structures and ESD outcomes, including tensions between efficiency mandates and transformative learning goals. - Conditions under which campus-based innovations scale or influence broader sustainability policy ecosystems Practical Impact:Workshop findings will directly inform: - HEI sustainability officers and administrators developing institutional strategies, governance structures, and coordinating mechanisms (e.g., selecting ethical EdTech, ensuring data privacy, avoiding “green tech-washing”, Green Offices) to operationalize sustainability commitments. - National education ministries translating frameworks like Germany's National Action Plan (with its 349 recommendations) into actionable institutional guidance and support structures. - International policy networks (UNESCO's ESD for 2030, SDG 4.7 monitoring) seeking evidence-based insights on implementation pathways and effectiveness indicators for higher education contexts. - Policy scholars and practitioners working at the intersection of sustainability governance, education policy, and institutional change, providing conceptual tools and empirical evidence for evidence-based policy design Proposed Publication Strategy: Recognizing the potential scholarly impact of our collaborative research, we aspire to translate the workshop's outcomes into a significant academic publication. We aim for a peer-reviewed special issue in a scientific journal that specifically focuses on the critical nexus of digital technologies, sustainability education, and institutional transformation.

Introduction Education systems are understood as central in securing individual, collective, national and global progress. Indeed, education systems have long been recognised as serving multiple purposes, ranging from preparing a skilled workforce to social inclusion, social cohesion and nation-building efforts. In addition, in a contemporary world riven by mounting and intersecting crises (from climate degradation to conflict and authoritarian populism), education systems both in the Global North and the Global South are increasingly posited as critical in addressing such wicked problems. However, their capacity to do so remains an open question – more so as it has been long recognised that such benefits and purposes are unequally distributed between and within national states, and that inequities are amplified for those in contexts more directly impacted by such crises. The extent to which education systems can meaningfully respond to this polycrisis scenario is ultimately a public policy question. While not inherently incompatible, the multiplicity of expectations placed on education systems tends to create tensions and trade-offs, often exposing the limits of existing governance arrangements at different scales, and the competing rationalities underpinning them. This workshop is premised on the notion that such tensions call for analytical attention as to the policy ideas, instruments and capacities through which education stakeholders mediate or adjudicate among different goals and address interrelated and interconnected challenges. Similarly, reflection is needed on the impacts of such arrangements, from a social justice and equity perspective, paying attention to those who are most impacted and affected by these polycrisis. This workshop aims to advance insights on how education systems reconcile a growing diversity of expectations in a changing world. To this end, the workshop is organised into two separate sections, each examining such tensions from a different angle. The first section will address the policy challenges derived from the combination of crises affecting the education field; while the second section will focus on the governance and regulation of education quasi-markets. Section 1: Rethinking education policy in turbulent times: Understanding challenges, navigating solutions The contemporary crisis context in which education science finds itself in make us imperative for academics, practitioners and policy makers to think and act differently. And requires conversations across disciplinary boundaries and sectoral priorities (Sayed 2025; Yan 2025). And it is this acknowledge urgency and cross-disciplinary fertilisation that this workshop will consider to address some of questions which requires a different policy imagination: what do these new policy thinking and actions look like? In particular, how do these policy responses address equity and social justice and the needs of citizens and communities in the Global South who are most disproportionately impacted by the effects of these contemporary global challenges while being least responsible for them? To shed light on these questions, we also need to understand better how the abovementioned aspects of this polycrisis are concretely – and disproportionately – challenging the education commitments, processes and outcomes in different parts of the world. This workshop is convened with the specific aim of addressing the overarching and interrelated research questions specified above. In doing so, the workshop hopes to create a rare yet much-needed space for deepening the interdisciplinary dialogue between educational studies on the one hand and public policy and administration scholarship on the other. To realise these potentials, we invite scholars from diverse geographical backgrounds and methodological orientations to join this workshop. Empirical, theoretical and/or methodological submissions are all welcome and can focus on any of the local, regional, national and international levels. We look forward to receiving submissions that can advance our understanding of the drivers, manifestations and consequences of education system crises, as well as how they can be effectively tackled in these settings through more effective policy design and implementation. Questions of particular interest include but are not limited to the following: - What are the implications of these contemporary global challenges for public policy and education policy studies? How can the dialogue between specific streams of educational studies and policy studies literature help us better understand these challenge(s) and the solutions? - How might the field of public policy and education policy studies address these challenges in conflict affected contexts centring the needs of the most marginalised and impoverished and who disproportionately bear the effects of these crises? - What is the role of education policies in mitigating as well as exacerbating one or more of the abovementioned crises? For the latter case, does the problem lie in their implementation or design (or both)? - How have these crises been successfully overcome in education systems? What are the various aspects of policy capacity that underpinned their exceptional performance? How has such capacity been developed and strengthened over time? - To the extent that solving these crises should be a collective endeavour, what should be the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders? How do we ensure equitable and just partnerships among stakeholders for addressing these contemporary global challenges? - In light of the funding cuts and constraints faced at both national and international levels, how can education financing system be redesigned and reconfigured to positive and sustained impact on student learning? In addressing these and other questions, we are particularly looking for contributions that centre equity and social justice, foregrounding the needs of the most marginalised and disadvantaged and who disproportionately bear the brunt of the effects of these global challenges. We welcome contributions from scholars whose work centre the Global South, especially conflict-affected contexts which are under-explored in both scholarships of public policy and educational studies. The workshop is planned to take a hybrid format to facilitate inclusiveness, especially in cases where scholars from the Global South may not be able to come to Ottawa in person due to resource constraints, among others. References Sayed, Y. (2025). “A field in crisis: disrupting education policy for transformation during challenging times.” Keynote address at the UKFIET 2025 Conference (Unpublished). Yan, Y. (2025). Advancing decolonization of public administration—Experiences and lessons from East Asia. Public Money & Management, 1-3. Section 2: The governance of education quasi-markets: Policy tensions and regulatory challenges In an increasing number of countries, education is delivered through quasi-market arrangements in which public and private subsidised provision coexist, and user choice plays a central role. Yet, despite the entrenched nature of education quasi-markets, recent years have been marked by the diversification of the policy configurations taken by such arrangements, as well as of the expectations placed on them. While private subsidised providers have historically been expected to maintain a degree of differentiation, they are increasingly required to align with system-level goals, often relative to equity. Similarly, school-choice systems are now expected to balance parental freedom with equity objectives (Zancajo et al., 2023). This section of the workshop is concerned with the tensions arising from competing demands within contemporary quasi-markets, particularly regarding the interplay between public and private forms of provision and spheres of interest. This diversity of expectations is approached as a public policy challenge requiring an understanding of the varied origins of education quasi-market arrangements and the policy instruments underpinning them, and the policy design choices shaping their governance and reform. These issues require closer examination, given the growing complexity of education quasi-markets and the various research challenges this has revealed. First, existing arrangements are frequently analysed by reference to loosely defined categories that obviate important variations in goals and design, limiting causal explanations. Second, research on the influence of political philosophy paradigms on the adoption and redesign of market policies (e.g., Wilson, 2017) remains largely fragmentary. Third, attention has tended to concentrate on specific countries (e.g., the US, UK, or Chile) and on post-1980s reforms, neglecting other contexts and prior developments. Finally, the effects of recent equity-oriented regulatory reforms remain under-examined, with evidence on the effectiveness of various policy redesigns still emerging (D’Agostino et al., 2017). We invite submissions analysing topics related to the following research questions: 1) What are the conceptualisation and operationalisation challenges posed by the public and private provision categories in education? Particular attention will be given to how different definitions and measurements help capture and interpret the tensions posed by contemporary education quasi-markets. 2) How do mixed provision and school-choice arrangements vary across contexts and over time, and what specific governance challenges stem from such different policy configurations? The workshop will examine the policy dilemmas arising from different institutional settlements among providers, families, and governments. 3) What regulatory approaches and policy instruments are used in different contexts to address emerging policy challenges? The workshop will pay particular attention to examining how policy problematisation dynamics shape such strategies and the outcomes and impacts of different policy choices. 4) What values and political rationales underpin current policy debates around private provision and choice in education? The workshop will address how competing notions of social justice are negotiated in ongoing reform processes, and how such normative considerations influence their legitimacy and impact. We invite both theoretical and empirical contributions. Empirical papers employing quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method approaches are welcome, including case studies and comparative analyses. References D’Agostino, T. J., Vernimmen, J., & Feldman, A. (2024). Reforming school choice systems to reduce segregation in schools: A comparative political economy study of education reform in Belgium, Chile, and the Netherlands. Peabody Journal of Education, 99(5), 596-620. Wilson, T. S. (2017). Philosophical understandings of American school choice. In R.A. Fox, & N.K. Buchanan (Eds), The Wiley Handbook of School Choice (pp. 81-95). Wiley Blackwell. Zancajo, A., Fontdevila, C., & Verger, A. (2023). Markets in Education and School Segregation: Paths of Problematization and Reform. In V. Dupriez et al. (Eds.), Educational Markets and Segregation (pp. 81-101). Springer.

1. Rationale The conceptual foundations of public policy owe an enormous debt to Michael Howlett’s scholarship. Over the course of four decades, his work has bridged theoretical traditions, integrating comparative public policy research with Canadian public administration and political economy. He has consistently insisted that concepts in policy analysis and public administration theory must be defined not only clearly but causally—that they should describe mechanisms and relationships, not merely categories. This emphasis on conceptual discipline enabled the conduct of systematic analyses of policy instruments, policy and administrative capacity, advisory systems, and design, while also positioning policy studies within broader debates about causation, explanation, and policy change. Howlett’s research has been characterized by two interrelated projects. The first is a conceptual project, focused on building coherent typologies and taxonomies of institutions and policy phenomena. The second is a causal project, concerned with how those typologies relate to processes of policy formulation, implementation, and change. Together, these projects have strengthened the analytical foundations of public policy research by linking conceptual precision to causal explanation. 2. Intellectual Trajectory Early in his career, Howlett examined the political economy of staples, province-building, paradigms, and policy styles in Canada, showing how nested multi-level institutions shaped development and resource governance. This work linked structural factors to policy outcomes, laying a foundation for his later theorization of policy capacity and design. His subsequent research developed a set of analytical building blocks—policy instruments, mixes, and designs—that allow scholars to identify the causal architecture of policy systems. Through the comparative study of instrument choice, he demonstrated how governments use specific tools to translate abstract goals into action and how the internal logic of those tools constrains future policy options. These insights underpin today’s literature on policy design and policy feedback. Equally influential is his work on policy paradigms, subsystems, networks, and advisory systems, which sheds light on how ideas, institutions, and actors interact across levels of governance and in multi-actor settings. Each framework reveals a different dimension of causation—from micro-level decision processes to macro-level learning and change—while maintaining analytical coherence through typological reasoning. 3. Relevance to Current Debates In recent years, there has been a renewed focus on causal mechanisms in public policy research. Scholars are increasingly seeking to identify the pathways that link policy design to policy output and outcomes, but this effort relies on clear conceptual definitions. The development of the policy capacity framework, for instance, has provided theoretical insights across various institutional contexts, helping to understand whether the different actors involved—both individually and collectively—possess the necessary competencies and skills to meet these challenges and produce effective policies. In this context, Howlett emphasizes that concepts must accurately reflect causal processes, which anticipated this methodological shift. His approach to typology, which is based on logical differentiation and functional reasoning, remains crucial for specifying mechanisms and relationships within complex policy systems. Howlett's comparative approach made it clear how mid-range concepts—such as instruments, mixes, and capacity—connect to larger theories of policy design and change. By drawing on insights from Canadian political economy and expanding them through cross-national analysis, he demonstrated how conceptual frameworks can link empirical insights to broader explanations. The workshop will examine how this methodology continues to influence research on policy instruments, design, and capacity in the face of uncertainty and transformation. 4. Workshop Objectives and Questions The workshop seeks to synthesize and extend Howlett’s contributions by addressing questions such as: (1) How have Howlett’s conceptual frameworks clarified causal relationships within the policy process? (2) What lessons does his typological approach offer for current mechanism-based research? (3) How do his theories of instruments, capacity, and design connect to broader patterns of policy stability and change? (4) How might his conceptual vocabulary guide new generations of policy scholars working on design, policy feedbacks, and learning? The workshop will combine conceptual reflection with empirically grounded inquiry, featuring papers that apply and extend Howlett’s frameworks across areas including climate and energy policy, crisis management, science and innovation systems, collaborative governance and intergovernmental coordination, among others. 5. Structure and Expected Outcomes The workshop will consist of five thematic sessions: (1) Paradigms, Policy Change and Policy Capacity: Ideas, learning, institutional evolution and policy capacity in action. (2) Subsystems and Networks: Causal architectures of multi-level and collaborative governance. (3) Policy Instruments, Policy Design and Causation: Linking design choices to behavioral and collaborative mechanisms. (4) Advisory Systems and Executive Styles: How governments decide. (5) Conceptual Futures: From typologies to causal theories in policy research. Anticipated participants include leading and emerging scholars from Canada, Europe, and Asia who have built upon or engaged with Howlett’s frameworks. The workshop’s outcomes will include a special issue or edited volume on “The Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy,” providing a cohesive reflection on Howlett’s intellectual legacy and its relevance to contemporary theory. By foregrounding his enduring contribution to conceptual rigour, the workshop will also contribute to IPPA’s broader aim of strengthening the methodological foundations of policy studies.

Machine learning (ML) is a branch of artificial intelligence that allows computers to learn from data and improve their outputs/performance without being explicitly programmed. Natural language processing (NLP) leverages ML modelling and enables computers to understand and attempt to make sense of the human language. Both ML and NLP have become powerful tools in social sciences and in policy analysis more specifically. They are capable of efficiently navigating through and extracting insight and knowledge from large datasets. This goes hand in hand with abundance of data (e.g., text) that are helpful or in some cases crucial to explain social and policy phenomena. This workshop builds on the premise ML and NLP as computational tools have the potential to enhance methodological grounding of quantitative public policy analysis (see Grimmer 2015; Mason et al. 2014). This premise builds on ML’s overall focus on prediction and its inductive-flexible modelling that entails a more lenient approach to both technical assumptions and interpretation of models (see Bryman et al. 2008). As such, ML arguably (to an extent) addresses drawbacks (e.g., focus on p-values and statistical significance; replication crisis; publication bias; statistically underpowered hypotheses) of prevalent quantitative research that utilises linear models as a benchmark (see Schrodt 2014). Although usage of ML and NLP in social sciences and in public policy is relatively novel, innovative and compelling empirical applications have been on the rise. The applications stem from quantitative text analyses including opinion mining, thematic analysis, topic modelling (see Yantseva and Kucher 2021); to informing public policy issues such as crime rates (see Reier Forradellas et al. 2020) and providing insight on online governmental services (see Alexopoulos et al. 2019). In addition, there are compelling investigations of potential of NLP and large language models (LLMs) for policy ranging from policy evaluation to production of policy briefs (see Singh et al. 2024; Safaei and Longo 2024). Overall, the applications have demonstrated methodological power of ML and NLP as well as their potential to extend and build on prevalent quantitative and qualitative techniques. Against this backdrop, the workshop aims to demonstrate the potential of ML and NLP techniques as applied to public policy concerns. In addition, the workshop aims to showcase synergies between ML approach to modelling data and established techniques for quantitative public policy analysis (e.g., experiments, linear modelling, panel data analysis, time series forecasting, cost-benefit analysis, etc.). The following research questions broadly guide and inform the workshop’s discussion: 1. To what extent and for what purpose does public policy utilise ML and NLP (LLMs)? 2. How do ML and NLP enhance policy outcomes as well as impact? 3. To what extent ML and NLP modelling enhance the existing methodological grounding of quantitative public policy? 4. How can ML and NLP work in synergy with other methodological approaches and techniques? 5. What are best practices in applying ML and NLP for public policy analysis? 6. What are the ongoing challenges (e.g., ethical concerns) regarding ML and NLP applications in public policy and how to address them? Building on the above, regarding ML, we invite contributions focusing on: · Empirical demonstrations of supervised (classification, prediction) and/or unsupervised (pattern recognition) ML applied to public policy issues; all public policy fields/sectors, geographical contexts as well as levels of analysis are welcome · Utility and limitations of ML modelling in analyses of public policies · Synergies between ML and established/conventional quantitative and qualitative techniques · Review of and critical assessment on applied ML for public policy including reflections on the current and future methodological setup of quantitative public policy Regarding NLP more specifically, we are particularly interested in papers that address one or more of the following themes: · Types of textual data used for policy analysis (e.g., legislative texts, regulations, policy briefs, political manifestos, speeches, and parliamentary debates) including reflections how these datasets are processed, the challenges of working with complex legal or political language, and the potential for expanding the range of data used in policy analysis · Demonstration and/or evaluation of different methodologies for analysing policy-related data including text classification, topic modelling, sentiment analysis, causal mapping, predictive analytics, and the use of LLMs for advanced language tasks; authors are encouraged to address limitations and ethical concerns, such as biases within models, transparency, interpretability, and the challenges of deploying LLMs in policy contexts. · Practical applications of NLP and LLMs in policymaking (e.g., automated production of policy briefs using LLMs to summarize legislative texts, real-time monitoring and evaluation of policy implementation, or predictive modelling to forecast policy outcomes, etc.) and their role in informing policy decisions, improving policy design and enhancing the understanding of complex policy issues; authors are also encouraged to critically assess to what extent can NLP and LLM technologies replace or complement human analysts and policymakers Overall, we encourage contributions from both researchers and practitioners who are exploring the intersection of ML, NLP (LLMs), and public policy. The above lists of topics for contributions are not exhaustive. Submissions may present empirical studies, methodological innovations, case studies, or theoretical (or critical) reflections. The workshop aims to foster an interdisciplinary dialogue on how these technologies are reshaping the field of public policy, the practical challenges they face, and the opportunities for further development. References: Alexopoulos, Charalampos, Zoi Lachana, Aggeliki Androutsopoulou, Vasiliki Diamantopoulou, Yannis Charalabidis, and Michalis Avgerinos Loutsaris. 2019. ‘How Machine Learning Is Changing E-Government’. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, April 3, 354–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/3326365.3326412. Bryman, Alan, Saul Becker, and Joe Sempik. 2008. ‘Quality Criteria for Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research: A View from Social Policy’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11 (4): 261–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401644. Grimmer, Justin. 2015. ‘We Are All Social Scientists Now: How Big Data, Machine Learning, and Causal Inference Work Together’. PS: Political Science & Politics 48 (01): 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514001784. Mason, Winter, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2014. ‘Computational Social Science and Social Computing’. Machine Learning 95 (3): 257–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-013-5426-8. Reier Forradellas, Ricardo Francisco, Sergio Luis Náñez Alonso, Javier Jorge-Vazquez, and Marcela Laura Rodriguez. 2020. ‘Applied Machine Learning in Social Sciences: Neural Networks and Crime Prediction’. Social Sciences 10 (1): 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10010004. Safaei, Mehrdad, and Justin Longo. 2024. ‘The End of the Policy Analyst? Testing the Capability of Artificial Intelligence to Generate Plausible, Persuasive, and Useful Policy Analysis’. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract. 5 (1): 4:1-4:35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3604570. Schrodt, Philip A. 2014. ‘Seven Deadly Sins of Contemporary Quantitative Political Analysis’. Journal of Peace Research 51 (2): 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313499597. Singh, Chandan, Jeevana Priya Inala, Michel Galley, Rich Caruana, and Jianfeng Gao. 2024. ‘Rethinking Interpretability in the Era of Large Language Models’. arXiv:2402.01761. Preprint, arXiv, January 30. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.01761. Yantseva, Victoria, and Kostiantyn Kucher. 2021. ‘Machine Learning for Social Sciences: Stance Classification of User Messages on a Migrant-Critical Discussion Forum’. 2021 Swedish Workshop on Data Science (SweDS), December 2, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/SweDS53855.2021.9637718.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping economies, societies, and governance systems. AI is now recognized as a general-purpose technology with transformative effects on every sector of society, yet, policy responses remain fragmented across ethics, innovation, and regulation. Further, its expansion depends on a robust concentration of physical assets that have environmental impacts vast data storage hubs, energy-intensive computing clusters, and complex networks of energy, water, and fiber-optic systems. In assessing these concerns, this two part workshop will discuss two research questions: 1. How to integrate AI into public administration and sustainable development in ways that encourage innovation while safeguarding equity, transparency, and ecological integrity and 2. How to ensure that the expansion of AI and data infrastructure contributes to sustainable, equitable, and secure urban development rather than exacerbating sustainability pressures and will highlight the debate on the urban, social, and environmental implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital infrastructure — particularly data centers, cloud facilities, and high-performance computing sites that sustain the global digital economy. While these infrastructures are often portrayed as invisible or immaterial, their physical footprint has become one of the defining challenges of our time. Objectives: We seek to advance a broad global policy conversation on how manage AI, a topic that involves not only examining the institutional mechanisms, governance models, and evaluation tools that can ensure AI supports social good but also one that advances ideas on how to govern the digital infrastructure as a new class of global public goods, balancing innovation, security, and sustainability. By bringing together academics, engineers, government officials, and representatives from Big Tech, and other the workshop will create an interdisciplinary space for knowledge exchange and collaborative inquiry into one of the most pressing frontiers of global governance. The outcome will be a special issue or edited volume that will contribute new areas of knowledge to the discussion. In addition to its theoretical contribution, the workshop has a pragmatic dimension: it aims to inform policymakers and corporate actors designing sustainability strategies for AI infrastructure. In sum, it will help establish an emerging field: "Urban AI Governance."

The objective of this ONSITE workshop is to bring together researchers working in the area of global transparency. Transparency has long been celebrated as a cornerstone of accountable governance, ethical institutions, and informed citizenship. Yet, in recent years, the very concept of transparency has come under increasing strain. From political polarization and democratic backsliding to the complexities of armed conflict, digital surveillance, algorithmic governance, and global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, transparency is being both demanded and contested with new intensity. We seek to examine how transparency operates—and evolves—when confronted with political, technological, organizational, and ideological tensions. The workshop aims to take stock of the current state of transparency research and stimulate dialogue across theoretical, normative, and empirical dimensions. Particular emphasis is placed on corruption, fiscal transparency, and technological change including artificial intelligence. The workshop will be comprised of research presentations and a series of breakout groups to explore opportunities for joint publications, other forms of knowledge mobilization, and possible grant collaborations.

The objective of this ONSITE workshop is to bring together researchers working in the area of global transparency. Transparency has long been celebrated as a cornerstone of accountable governance, ethical institutions, and informed citizenship. Yet, in recent years, the very concept of transparency has come under increasing strain. From political polarization and democratic backsliding to the complexities of armed conflict, digital surveillance, algorithmic governance, and global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, transparency is being both demanded and contested with new intensity. We seek to examine how transparency operates—and evolves—when confronted with political, technological, organizational, and ideological tensions. The workshop aims to take stock of the current state of transparency research and stimulate dialogue across theoretical, normative, and empirical dimensions. Particular emphasis is placed on access to information, open government, and transparency policy. The workshop will be comprised of research presentations and a series of breakout groups to explore opportunities for joint publications, other forms of knowledge mobilization, and possible grant collaborations.