an article by Richard Freeman published by Transforming Society
What do policy makers do? The question is important, because making policy engages a great number of people one way or another, and what they do they might do well or badly. Our standard answers are rather hazy, not least because policy making entails such great numbers of people doing a great number of things.
The literature tends to have addressed the question in functional terms, outlining and defining – and endlessly debating – different sets of activities such as advocacy and agenda-setting, formulating and decision making, implementing and evaluating.
But what if we were to begin somewhere else, to explore policy as a set of human actions, as a form of work, as real-time, practical and physical ‘doings and sayings‘? What do policy makers really do? What does their work entail?
The answer is surprisingly simple:
‘The two things that civil servants do is write papers and have meetings. Because that’s what we do. From that, things happen. Extraordinary though it might seem’ (quote from a senior civil servant)
‘When someone asks me what I do at work … I read, write and have meetings, that’s what I do’ (quote from a policy manager)
Continue reading
Please note that the link to the article in “Policy & Politics” only takes you to the abstract – a lot less information than in the Transforming Society article.
Showing posts with label policy-making. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy-making. Show all posts
Friday, 25 October 2019
Tuesday, 19 March 2019
Rationality and politics of algorithms. Will the promise of big data survive the dynamics of public decision making?
H.G.van der Voort and A.J.Klievink (TU Delft, the Netherlands), M.Arnaboldi (Politecnico di Milano, Italy) and A.J.Meijer (Utrecht University, the Netherlands) published in Government Information Quarterly Volume 36 Issue 1 (January 2019)
Highlights
Abstract
Big data promises to transform public decision-making for the better by making it more responsive to actual needs and policy effects.
However, much recent work on big data in public decision-making assumes a rational view of decision-making, which has been much criticized in the public administration debate.
In this paper, we apply this view, and a more political one, to the context of big data and offer a qualitative study. We question the impact of big data on decision-making, realizing that big data – including its new methods and functions – must inevitably encounter existing political and managerial institutions.
By studying two illustrative cases of big data use processes, we explore how these two worlds meet. Specifically, we look at the interaction between data analysts and decision makers.
In this we distinguish between a rational view and a political view, and between an information logic and a decision logic. We find that big data provides ample opportunities for both analysts and decision makers to do a better job, but this doesn't necessarily imply better decision-making, because big data also provides opportunities for actors to pursue their own interests.
Big data enables both data analysts and decision makers to act as autonomous agents rather than as links in a functional chain. Therefore, big data's impact cannot be interpreted only in terms of its functional promise; it must also be acknowledged as a phenomenon set to impact our policy-making institutions, including their legitimacy.
Full text (HTML)
Highlights
- A framework respecting both a rational and a political view on decision-making and respecting the perspectives of both data analysts and decision makers.
- We found that data analysts are politically significant in all stages. They have a crucial role in constructing information, facilitating framing and adjusting information to political preferences. However, powers of data analysts are limited. Data analysts do their work in the context of predefined policies. Decision makers sometimes just neglect or bypass big data analysis.
- Mere functional support for big data to decision making or mere warnings for the politics of big data may miss an important aspect of big data. An important additional question is whether the powers of data analysts and decision makers are well-balanced and how checks and balances could be organized.
Abstract
Big data promises to transform public decision-making for the better by making it more responsive to actual needs and policy effects.
However, much recent work on big data in public decision-making assumes a rational view of decision-making, which has been much criticized in the public administration debate.
In this paper, we apply this view, and a more political one, to the context of big data and offer a qualitative study. We question the impact of big data on decision-making, realizing that big data – including its new methods and functions – must inevitably encounter existing political and managerial institutions.
By studying two illustrative cases of big data use processes, we explore how these two worlds meet. Specifically, we look at the interaction between data analysts and decision makers.
In this we distinguish between a rational view and a political view, and between an information logic and a decision logic. We find that big data provides ample opportunities for both analysts and decision makers to do a better job, but this doesn't necessarily imply better decision-making, because big data also provides opportunities for actors to pursue their own interests.
Big data enables both data analysts and decision makers to act as autonomous agents rather than as links in a functional chain. Therefore, big data's impact cannot be interpreted only in terms of its functional promise; it must also be acknowledged as a phenomenon set to impact our policy-making institutions, including their legitimacy.
Full text (HTML)
Monday, 4 February 2019
The Rise of the Idea of Model in Policymaking: The case of the British parliament, 1803-2005
Pertti Alasuutari and Marjaana Rautalin (The University of Tampere, Finland) and Jukka Tyrkkö (Linnaeus University, Småland, Sweden) published in European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie Volume 59 Issue 3 (December 2018)
Abstract
The paper addresses the question whether national decision-making has become increasingly interdependent in recent decades, and what role “world models” play in any such trend. These questions are scrutinised by utilising the “Historic Hansard” corpus, which contains all records of the UK Parliament from 1803 to 2005, complemented by other corpora.
The results show that references to other countries were most frequent in parliamentary debates very early in the 19th century. However, allusions to other countries have evolved from referencing case examples to referencing policies that are constructed and branded as models.
The idea of transferable models caught on particularly strongly from the 1950s onward. The other corpora used for the study confirmed that these changes reflect a global trend. Hence, the post-war era has witnessed a worldwide spread of the idea of model as a precondition for a global proliferation of named models.
Abstract
The paper addresses the question whether national decision-making has become increasingly interdependent in recent decades, and what role “world models” play in any such trend. These questions are scrutinised by utilising the “Historic Hansard” corpus, which contains all records of the UK Parliament from 1803 to 2005, complemented by other corpora.
The results show that references to other countries were most frequent in parliamentary debates very early in the 19th century. However, allusions to other countries have evolved from referencing case examples to referencing policies that are constructed and branded as models.
The idea of transferable models caught on particularly strongly from the 1950s onward. The other corpora used for the study confirmed that these changes reflect a global trend. Hence, the post-war era has witnessed a worldwide spread of the idea of model as a precondition for a global proliferation of named models.
Friday, 4 January 2019
From contest to context: urban green space and public policy
an article by Julian Dobson (University of Sheffield, UK) published in People, Place and Policy Volume 12 Issue 2 (December 2018)
Summary
The role of urban green spaces in supporting mental and physical wellbeing is well evidenced. At a time when mental ill-health is seen as a major factor limiting the life chances of the poorest groups in society, the case for the provision and protection of natural urban environments would appear indisputable.
Yet establishing direct causal links between natural environments and specific health outcomes is complex and problematic. Different green spaces contribute to experiences of wellbeing in different ways for different people. Public policies that seek to employ green space to achieve health objectives through ‘interventions’ or ‘prescriptions’ are thus fraught with difficulties.
Rather than seeing green space as an instrumental factor or ‘dose’ in improving wellbeing, this paper, based on emerging findings from research in Sheffield, UK, argues that policymakers need to think of multifunctional natural environments as essential contexts for the promotion of wellbeing. Urban austerity, however, acts as a countervailing context-changing driver, reframing wellbeing within a narrative of public service cost control.
Full text (HTML)
Summary
The role of urban green spaces in supporting mental and physical wellbeing is well evidenced. At a time when mental ill-health is seen as a major factor limiting the life chances of the poorest groups in society, the case for the provision and protection of natural urban environments would appear indisputable.
Yet establishing direct causal links between natural environments and specific health outcomes is complex and problematic. Different green spaces contribute to experiences of wellbeing in different ways for different people. Public policies that seek to employ green space to achieve health objectives through ‘interventions’ or ‘prescriptions’ are thus fraught with difficulties.
Rather than seeing green space as an instrumental factor or ‘dose’ in improving wellbeing, this paper, based on emerging findings from research in Sheffield, UK, argues that policymakers need to think of multifunctional natural environments as essential contexts for the promotion of wellbeing. Urban austerity, however, acts as a countervailing context-changing driver, reframing wellbeing within a narrative of public service cost control.
Full text (HTML)
Tuesday, 9 October 2018
Why women matter in monetary policymaking
a column by Donato Masciandaro, Paola Profeta and Davide Romelli for VOX: CEPR’s Policy Portal
Women are increasingly represented in central banks, yet little is known about the role they play in monetary policymaking.
Using a new global dataset on the presence of women on central bank monetary policy committees in 2002-2016, this column finds that for the same level of inflation, a higher share of women on the central bank board is associated with a higher interest rate.
The findings suggest that women in central banks have a more hawkish attitude, and that heterogeneity of monetary policy committees can have an impact on monetary policy decisions.
Continue reading
Women are increasingly represented in central banks, yet little is known about the role they play in monetary policymaking.
Using a new global dataset on the presence of women on central bank monetary policy committees in 2002-2016, this column finds that for the same level of inflation, a higher share of women on the central bank board is associated with a higher interest rate.
The findings suggest that women in central banks have a more hawkish attitude, and that heterogeneity of monetary policy committees can have an impact on monetary policy decisions.
Continue reading
Friday, 5 October 2018
Evidence-informed policymaking and policy innovation in a low-income country: does policy network structure matter?
an article by Jessica C Shearer (PATH, USA) and John Lavis, Julia Abelson and Michelle Dion (McMaster University, Canada) and Gill Walt (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK) published in Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice Volume 14 Number 3 (August 2018)
Abstract
The application of social network analysis to policy networks continues to grow, including the application of social network analysis tools and concepts in order to explain policy outcomes. Gaps in this field of study persist in terms of both policy issues studied, as well as types of polities or networks analysed.
This study extends previous research on the role of network structure in shaping policy outcomes by analysing network structure's effect on the use of research evidence by three health policy networks in Burkina Faso, a low-income West African country, and the resulting innovativeness of the policies made.
This comparative case study confirms certain hypotheses related to the effect of network closure and heterogeneity on evidence use and innovation; namely, that heterogeneous networks are more likely to be exposed to new ideas, and thus to use research evidence and adopt innovative policies. High levels of centralised control and power may support innovation when the new ideas are consistent with the dominant network paradigms; otherwise, new ideas may receive less traction.
These findings confirm previous research and point to opportunities to shape networks to achieve innovation and policy change based on the best evidence.
Full text (PDF 21pp)
Abstract
The application of social network analysis to policy networks continues to grow, including the application of social network analysis tools and concepts in order to explain policy outcomes. Gaps in this field of study persist in terms of both policy issues studied, as well as types of polities or networks analysed.
This study extends previous research on the role of network structure in shaping policy outcomes by analysing network structure's effect on the use of research evidence by three health policy networks in Burkina Faso, a low-income West African country, and the resulting innovativeness of the policies made.
This comparative case study confirms certain hypotheses related to the effect of network closure and heterogeneity on evidence use and innovation; namely, that heterogeneous networks are more likely to be exposed to new ideas, and thus to use research evidence and adopt innovative policies. High levels of centralised control and power may support innovation when the new ideas are consistent with the dominant network paradigms; otherwise, new ideas may receive less traction.
These findings confirm previous research and point to opportunities to shape networks to achieve innovation and policy change based on the best evidence.
Full text (PDF 21pp)
Friday, 6 April 2018
Achieving Disability Equality: Empowering Disabled People to Take the Lead
an article by Laufey Löve, Rannveig Traustadóttir and James Gordon Rice (University of Iceland, Iceland) published in Social Inclusion Volume 6 Number 1 (2018)
Abstract
Achieving disability equality calls for transformative changes to society’s structures and norms. Recognizing the central role of disabled people and their organizations in this restructuring, and the call of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) for their full inclusion in all legal and policy decisions relating to their rights, this article focuses on how disability groups and organizations regard their ability to effect changes in line with the CRPD.
The article draws on qualitative interviews with leaders of disability organizations and activist groups in Iceland in 2016 and 2017. The findings reflect frustration among the leaders with what they perceive to be a lack of sustained progress in the decade since the country signed the CRPD.
In their view, this period has been characterized by a lack of meaningful involvement of disabled people in policymaking, and a lack of political will and interest in disability affairs, which has resulted in stagnation.
As a result, leaders of disabled people’s organizations have begun to change their strategies and are taking steps to redefine their approaches, and reframe the issues and dialogue with authorities in a more progressive manner, demanding to have more say in the process of change.
Full text (PDF 8pp)
Abstract
Achieving disability equality calls for transformative changes to society’s structures and norms. Recognizing the central role of disabled people and their organizations in this restructuring, and the call of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) for their full inclusion in all legal and policy decisions relating to their rights, this article focuses on how disability groups and organizations regard their ability to effect changes in line with the CRPD.
The article draws on qualitative interviews with leaders of disability organizations and activist groups in Iceland in 2016 and 2017. The findings reflect frustration among the leaders with what they perceive to be a lack of sustained progress in the decade since the country signed the CRPD.
In their view, this period has been characterized by a lack of meaningful involvement of disabled people in policymaking, and a lack of political will and interest in disability affairs, which has resulted in stagnation.
As a result, leaders of disabled people’s organizations have begun to change their strategies and are taking steps to redefine their approaches, and reframe the issues and dialogue with authorities in a more progressive manner, demanding to have more say in the process of change.
Full text (PDF 8pp)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
