{"title":"Steering the future: expert knowledge and stakeholder voices in autonomous vehicle policy reports","authors":"Diana Hicks, Gordon Kingsley, Kimberley R Isett","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae041","url":null,"abstract":"The anticipated arrival of autonomous vehicles has created considerable uncertainty for US states because they govern roads. In response, states activated their policy advisory systems. While policy advising at the national level has been studied, less is known about the sub-national level. Similarly, more is known about the use of scientific knowledge by policymakers than about the full range of knowledge deployed in policy advising. This study analyzes reports written for states to help them make sense of an emerging technology in preparation for governance. Committees, university researchers, staff at Department of Transportation, and legislative staff produced different types of reports, for example, more and less academic, focused more or less on topics associated with governance or engineering. Our analysis reveals that state policy advisory systems used two types of processes—convening and expert—and employed three types of expertise—academic, practical, and political—to help prepare to govern this emerging technology. The study provides insight into how states mobilized expertise to address uncertainty around an emerging technology, showing how different actors balanced the need for credible technical knowledge with legitimate stakeholder engagement.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142962797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Collaborative governance in politicized times: the battle over asylum policies in Italian cities","authors":"Raffaele Bazurli, Francesca Campomori","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae038","url":null,"abstract":"Collaborative governance has gained momentum for its promise to deliver social inclusion, with municipalities viewed as ideal spaces for its success. However, little research critically examines the political conditions under which this is the case. This article theorizes why and how collaborative local governance succeeds or fails in today’s divided democracies. It argues that politicization manifests in three dimensions of local governance—among stakeholders, across government levels, and in the framing of policy target groups. These dynamics often incentivize the exclusion of marginalized populations. For collaboration to succeed, it must be anchored in an ideologically cohesive network of stakeholders, with civil society organizations acting as political advocates for disadvantaged groups. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in 2018–2022, we compare asylum policies in two Italian cities: Bologna and Venice. Despite rising far-right politics nationally, Bologna’s collaborative governance persisted thanks to the sustained commitment of local officials and civil society actors, all sharing ideological and strategic motivations in promoting refugee rights. In contrast, anti-migrant politics has increasingly informed the policy agenda of Venice elected officials. The politicization of immigration offered them powerful incentives to wipe out long-established collaborations and to frame refugees as undeserving policy targets, leading to their exclusion from public services. These findings extend to other geographical contexts and policy sectors, calling for a more political understanding of collaborative local governance.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142936166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Justyna Bandola-Gill, Niklas A Andersen, Rhodri Leng, Valérie Pattyn, Katherine E Smith
{"title":"A matter of culture? Conceptualizing and investigating “Evidence Cultures” within research on evidence-informed policymaking","authors":"Justyna Bandola-Gill, Niklas A Andersen, Rhodri Leng, Valérie Pattyn, Katherine E Smith","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae036","url":null,"abstract":"This paper conceptualizes the notion of “evidence culture” in evidence-informed policymaking by surveying existing literature that either specifically employs the term or uses adjacent terms such as “epistemic” or “research culture”. It employs mixed-methods scoping review, combining citation analysis using Web of Science data used to identify the key clusters of scholarship with a qualitative thematic analysis of key papers across these clusters. This analysis identifies seven distinct approaches to “evidence cultures” across disciplinary communities. The key points of divergence across the clusters include the meanings of evidence, the underlying understanding of the evidence–policy interplay, the conceptualization of culture, and its implications for evidence use in policy. Building on these insights, we offer a framework for analyzing evidence cultures, arguing for the conceptual and empirical utility of this term in advancing scholarship on evidence use in policy settings.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142902255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Exploring cultures of evidence in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands","authors":"Will McDowall","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae035","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores different “cultures of evidence” in energy policymaking in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. The urgent energy system transformation needed to respond to the climate crisis depends on policies informed by technical and engineering expertise, and particularly energy modeling. Such expertise had traditionally been poorly represented in the energy ministries of the Dutch, German, and UK governments. There is limited understanding of how policy advisory systems have evolved to respond to these emerging evidence needs. This paper presents a framework for describing how cultures of evidence differ, and applies this to a comparative study of energy policymaking in the UK, Netherlands, and Germany. I show clear differences in how evidence is understood and used. The Dutch and German governments have sought technical and modeling evidence from consultants or independent agencies. In doing so, the Dutch and German ministries appear to place stronger value on the “independence” of such evidence, while the UK system builds credibility through adherence to formal procedures. A second clear difference in the cultures of evidence relates to different beliefs about the extent to which expert knowledge can be impartial and value-free. The cases suggest that different cultures of evidence have coevolved with each country’s institutional history and shaped the energy policy advisory system.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142672950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kidjie Saguin, João V Guedes-Neto, Pedro Lucas Moura Palotti, Natália Massaco Koga, Flavio Lyrio Carneiro
{"title":"Variation in evidence use across policy sectors: the case of Brazil","authors":"Kidjie Saguin, João V Guedes-Neto, Pedro Lucas Moura Palotti, Natália Massaco Koga, Flavio Lyrio Carneiro","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae031","url":null,"abstract":"Evidence use across policy sectors is widely believed to vary as each sector espouses a specific and dominant pattern in how it sources evidence. This view privileges the idea that a “culture of evidence” serves as a norm that guides behavior in the entire sector. In this article, we seek to nuance the policy sectoral approach to understanding evidence use by analyzing the results of a large-N survey of federal employees in Brazil (n = 2,177). Our findings show a diverse set of cultures of evidence with a few sectors like Science and Technology demonstrating a strong likelihood for using scientific evidence with most sectors showing a mixed pattern of sourcing evidence. However, a majority of the surveyed civil servants show an “indistinct” pattern of evidence use who are likely to not use any sources of evidence.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142637546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A world of evidence: the global spread and silent politics of evidence cultures","authors":"Holger Straßheim","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae029","url":null,"abstract":"How can we explain the worldwide spread of evidence-based policymaking despite continuous criticism? What are the underlying mechanisms of its persistence on a global scale? This article aims at answering these questions by focusing on the cultural constellations in which evidence is imbued with political as well as epistemic authority. Evidence cultures are discursive and institutional forces (re-)producing both the scientific validation of knowledge and its relevance in policymaking. They need to be understood as self-propagating constellations of interlinking science and policy through practices, discourses and institutionally sedimented regulations. Evidence is the product of chains of practices in which the initial knowledge struggles are gradually made publicly invisible and often inaccessible. The article reconstructs the immunization of evidence cultures from criticism and their silent politics by looking at quantifications, benchmarking and randomized controlled trials as typical cases. To overcome the circularities and closures so characteristic of the evidence culture of evidence-based policymaking, politico-epistemic diversity should be actively promoted.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142449438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Joanna Vince, Maree Fudge, Liam Fullbrook, Marcus Haward
{"title":"Understanding policy integration through an integrative capacity framework","authors":"Joanna Vince, Maree Fudge, Liam Fullbrook, Marcus Haward","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae027","url":null,"abstract":"An important aspect of policy integration is the need for policymakers to establish integrative capacity. However, very few scholars who refer to this concept have explained what integrative capacity is and what aspects of the policy process policymakers need to focus on to establish that capacity. In this paper, we define integrative capacity and introduce an “integrative capacity framework” that outlines key components required by public agencies to progress policy integration. Drawing on existing literature, we apply three dimensions of policy—the policy process, program, and politics—to identify where integrative capacity can occur. Within those dimensions, we identify four conditions that can impact integration: coordination and coherence; accountability, transparency, and legitimacy; resourcing and adequate institutional architecture. We argue that by unpacking the integrative capacity concept, scholars and policymakers can utilize the framework to identify what elements of the policy process need to be addressed to increase the likelihood of integrative policy success.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"230 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141915234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Words not deeds: the weak culture of evidence in the Canadian policy style","authors":"Andrea Migone, Michael Howlett, Alexander Howlett","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae026","url":null,"abstract":"The Canadian policy style has been described as one of overpromising and underdelivering, where heightened expectations are often met by underwhelming outcomes. Here, we examine the evidentiary style of Canadian policy-making which undergirds and reflects this policy style, particularly the nature of the policy advisory system that contributes to this pattern of policy-making. We do so by assessing how the different components of the advice system, which include academics, consultants, and policy professionals within the public service, are structured and relate to each other within the overall dynamics of information management and policy formulation in the governments of Canada. Using examples from recent efforts to revitalize Canadian government, the paper argues that the federal government in particular shows a pattern of the predominance of non-innovative academic “super-users,” distributed policy shops, and process-oriented analysts and consultants who combine with attributes of federalism and partisan budgetary politics to drive a distinctively fragmented and procedurally-oriented federal policy-making process. In these processes, evidence is often secondary to political posturing and short-term electioneering in program creation and execution, contributing greatly to the national policy style set out above.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141910443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jörn Ege, Anat Gofen, Susanne Hadorn, Inbal Hakman, Anna Malandrino, Leroy Ramseier, Fritz Sager
{"title":"Understanding street-level managers’ compliance: a comparative study of policy implementation in Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and Israel","authors":"Jörn Ege, Anat Gofen, Susanne Hadorn, Inbal Hakman, Anna Malandrino, Leroy Ramseier, Fritz Sager","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae024","url":null,"abstract":"This study focuses on street-level managers’ (SLMs) compliance with COVID-19 measures in Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and Israel, in order to better understand their role during policy implementation. Responsible for the direct delivery of public services, street-level organizations serve as the operational arm of the state in general and as the frontline of government policy in times of crisis. SLMs who occupy the top managerial tier within their organization are understudied, although they exert a significant influence on everyday public life. The data comprise 399 “compliance stories” based on interviews with managers in nurseries, schools, health care and welfare offices, police stations, and care homes. Using “codebook thematic analysis,” we identify various levels of (non)compliance and several prominent explanatory factors that shape (non)compliance. Data show that even when asked about particularly challenging measures, managers reported that their organization had been noncompliant (either full or partial) in only about a quarter of the stories. Three influences emerge as primary barriers to compliance—a lack of resources, managers’ relationships with clients, and the perception of the measure’s effectiveness. Emphasizing that SLMs often act as local policy entrepreneurs using their discretion to solve problems and serve the public, our findings further demonstrate the crucial role they play in shaping the face of the government for the people.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"126 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141495654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Meeting expectations? Response of policy innovation labs to sustainable development goals","authors":"Esti Hoss-Golan, Anat Gofen, Adam M Wellstead","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae023","url":null,"abstract":"Introduced by the United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim at facilitating inclusive sustainable development. Responsiveness to SDGs is considered a key to addressing pressing development problems. The current literature focuses on the responsiveness of varied public organizations to SDGs, whereas SDGs’ responsiveness of policy innovation labs (PILs) is understudied. Aiming to address both persistent and emerging social and environmental problems, PILs are aligned with SDGs. On the other hand, PILs seek innovative ways to generate policy solutions in collaboration with citizens through experimental methods and thus are more committed to the local public rather than international organizations. This paper investigates to what extent and in what way PILs respond to SDGs during policy formulation processes, both implicitly and explicitly. Data draws on a database the authors developed, identifying 211 European PILs. Thematic coding of PILs’ websites reveals that 62.1% of the PILs implicitly promote at least one SDG. Additionally, sustainable cities and communities (SDG11) and good health and well-being (SDG3) are the two SDGs with the highest implicit-response rates, respectively. We apply grounded theory analysis from semi-structured interviews with senior PIL employees of 31 PILs to gauge their explicit views of SDGs. This inductive approach reveals three dimensions to SDGs: levels of responsiveness, different practices, and considerations that guide PILs on whether to comply with SDGs. A better understanding of PILs’ response to SDGs provides a more nuanced portrayal of PILs as organizations aiming to craft innovative policy solutions that align with international frameworks.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"93 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141495674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}