Introducing a digital tool for sustainability impact assessments within the German Federal Government: A neo-institutional perspective

IF 2.7 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Camilla Wanckel
{"title":"Introducing a digital tool for sustainability impact assessments within the German Federal Government: A neo-institutional perspective","authors":"Camilla Wanckel","doi":"10.1177/00208523211047093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the institutionalization of information technologies for policy formulation by investigating the case of eNAP. The digital tool was introduced in the spring of 2018 with the aim of supporting and improving sustainability impact assessments (SIAs) within the German Federal Government. Applying a neo-institutional perspective, this study shows how a tool like eNAP is embedded into prevailing regulative, normative, and cultural–cognitive structures. Findings from 10 semi-structured interviews indicate that the application of eNAP varies according to intra-ministerial coordination practices and portfolio-specific information-processing schemata. Overall, the tool serves to translate the abstract regulation to conduct an SIA, as well as to translate the vague norm of “sustainability” into a concrete assessment requirement, thereby helping increase policy officials’ awareness of sustainability goals. However, consistent with previous studies, great importance is not attached to SIAs in policy formulation, and prevailing norms and routines make the implementation of eNAP to increase the use of evidence or in-depth considerations of policy alternatives and their consequences unlikely. Points for practitioners Information and communication technologies (ICTs) provide new opportunities to support ex-ante policy evaluations. Practitioners enforcing ICTs for impact assessments should take a comprehensive perspective on the institutional context because both formal organizational structures and implicit expectations, habits and routines affect how policy officials use these tools. Technology alone does not improve policy evaluations, and a misfit between regulative, normative and cultural–cognitive institutional elements can lead to merely symbolic displays of impact assessments through the means of digital tools.","PeriodicalId":47811,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","volume":"89 1","pages":"433 - 449"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211047093","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This study examines the institutionalization of information technologies for policy formulation by investigating the case of eNAP. The digital tool was introduced in the spring of 2018 with the aim of supporting and improving sustainability impact assessments (SIAs) within the German Federal Government. Applying a neo-institutional perspective, this study shows how a tool like eNAP is embedded into prevailing regulative, normative, and cultural–cognitive structures. Findings from 10 semi-structured interviews indicate that the application of eNAP varies according to intra-ministerial coordination practices and portfolio-specific information-processing schemata. Overall, the tool serves to translate the abstract regulation to conduct an SIA, as well as to translate the vague norm of “sustainability” into a concrete assessment requirement, thereby helping increase policy officials’ awareness of sustainability goals. However, consistent with previous studies, great importance is not attached to SIAs in policy formulation, and prevailing norms and routines make the implementation of eNAP to increase the use of evidence or in-depth considerations of policy alternatives and their consequences unlikely. Points for practitioners Information and communication technologies (ICTs) provide new opportunities to support ex-ante policy evaluations. Practitioners enforcing ICTs for impact assessments should take a comprehensive perspective on the institutional context because both formal organizational structures and implicit expectations, habits and routines affect how policy officials use these tools. Technology alone does not improve policy evaluations, and a misfit between regulative, normative and cultural–cognitive institutional elements can lead to merely symbolic displays of impact assessments through the means of digital tools.
在德国联邦政府内部引入可持续性影响评估的数字工具:新制度视角
本研究通过调查eNAP的案例,考察了信息技术用于政策制定的制度化。该数字工具于2018年春季推出,旨在支持和改进德国联邦政府内部的可持续性影响评估。运用新制度视角,本研究展示了eNAP这样的工具是如何嵌入主流的调节、规范和文化认知结构中的。10次半结构化访谈的结果表明,eNAP的应用因部内协调实践和特定投资组合的信息处理模式而异。总的来说,该工具有助于将抽象的监管转化为SIA,并将模糊的“可持续性”规范转化为具体的评估要求,从而帮助提高政策官员对可持续性目标的认识。然而,与之前的研究一致,在政策制定中没有高度重视SIA,而现行的规范和惯例使得eNAP的实施不太可能增加证据的使用或对政策替代方案及其后果的深入考虑。从业人员要点信息和通信技术为支持事前政策评估提供了新的机会。执行信通技术影响评估的从业者应全面看待机构背景,因为正式的组织结构和隐含的期望、习惯和惯例都会影响政策官员如何使用这些工具。技术本身并不能改善政策评估,监管、规范和文化认知制度要素之间的不匹配可能导致通过数字工具对影响评估的象征性展示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: IRAS is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to academic and professional public administration. Founded in 1927 it is the oldest scholarly public administration journal specifically focused on comparative and international topics. IRAS seeks to shape the future agenda of public administration around the world by encouraging reflection on international comparisons, new techniques and approaches, the dialogue between academics and practitioners, and debates about the future of the field itself.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信