Policy dialogue and engagement between non-governmental organizations and government: A survey of processes and instruments of canadian policy workers

Q1 Social Sciences
B. Evans, A. Wellstead
{"title":"Policy dialogue and engagement between non-governmental organizations and government: A survey of processes and instruments of canadian policy workers","authors":"B. Evans, A. Wellstead","doi":"10.3138/9781442668034-016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Various analysts have raised concerns respecting declining research, evaluation and analytical capacities within public services. Typically, the decline is attributed to reforms associated with neoliberal restructuring of the state and its concomitant managerial expression in New Public Management (NPM).  This has given rise to a conceptual shift now commonly captured as a movement from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. Policy advising from a new governance perspective entails an image of a more distributed policy advisory system where a plurality of actors, including non-state actors, engages with government in deliberating policy interventions to address collective problems. The original research presented here suggests that those responsible for policy work across four policy communities in the three Canadian provinces surveyed differ in terms of their capacities, depth of commitment to a specific policy file/field, roles and functions, as well as perceptions of the policy work that they undertake. Over the past several years, a number of primarily quantitative analyses examining the processes, tools and perspectives of Canadian federal and provincial government policy analysts have been published.  Consequently, a significant knowledge-base has been acquired respecting what government policy analysts do and their attitudes toward their work but very little is known about external interactions with non-governmental organizations (NGOs).","PeriodicalId":38545,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Public Policy","volume":"7 1","pages":"60-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442668034-016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

Various analysts have raised concerns respecting declining research, evaluation and analytical capacities within public services. Typically, the decline is attributed to reforms associated with neoliberal restructuring of the state and its concomitant managerial expression in New Public Management (NPM).  This has given rise to a conceptual shift now commonly captured as a movement from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. Policy advising from a new governance perspective entails an image of a more distributed policy advisory system where a plurality of actors, including non-state actors, engages with government in deliberating policy interventions to address collective problems. The original research presented here suggests that those responsible for policy work across four policy communities in the three Canadian provinces surveyed differ in terms of their capacities, depth of commitment to a specific policy file/field, roles and functions, as well as perceptions of the policy work that they undertake. Over the past several years, a number of primarily quantitative analyses examining the processes, tools and perspectives of Canadian federal and provincial government policy analysts have been published.  Consequently, a significant knowledge-base has been acquired respecting what government policy analysts do and their attitudes toward their work but very little is known about external interactions with non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
非政府组织与政府之间的政策对话和参与:加拿大政策工作者的程序和工具调查
各种分析人士对公共服务部门研究、评价和分析能力的下降表示关切。通常,这种下降归因于与国家的新自由主义重组及其伴随的新公共管理(NPM)中的管理表达相关的改革。这引起了一种概念上的转变,现在通常被称为从“政府”到“治理”的运动。从新的治理角度来看,政策咨询需要一种更加分散的政策咨询系统的形象,在这种系统中,包括非国家行为体在内的多个行为体与政府一起审议政策干预措施,以解决集体问题。这里提出的原始研究表明,在接受调查的加拿大三个省的四个政策社区中,负责政策工作的人在能力、对特定政策文件/领域的承诺深度、角色和职能以及对他们所承担的政策工作的看法方面存在差异。在过去几年中,出版了一些主要是定量的分析,审查了加拿大联邦和省政府政策分析人员的过程、工具和观点。因此,关于政府政策分析人员所做的工作及其对工作的态度,已经获得了一个重要的知识基础,但对与非政府组织的外部相互作用却知之甚少。
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
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊介绍: The Central European Journal of Public Policy (CEJPP) is an open-access, multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal with primary focus upon analytical, theoretical and methodological articles in the field of public policy. The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges. The aim of the CEJPP is to provide academic scholars and professionals in different policy fields with the latest theoretical and methodological advancements in public policy supported by sound empirical research. The CEJPP addresses all topics of public policy including social services and healthcare, environmental protection, education, labour market, immigration, security, public financing and budgeting, administrative reform, performance measurements, governance and others. It attempts to find a balance between description, explanation and evaluation of public policies and encourages a wide range of social science approaches, both qualitative and quantitative. Although the journal focuses primarily upon Central Europe, relevant contributions from other geographical areas are also welcomed in order to enhance public policy research in Central Europe.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信