智库在寻求共识和新社团主义政策咨询体系中的地位

IF 2.7 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Bert Fraussen, Valérie Pattyn
{"title":"智库在寻求共识和新社团主义政策咨询体系中的地位","authors":"Bert Fraussen, Valérie Pattyn","doi":"10.1177/00208523231211541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While think tanks are no longer solely a feature of Anglo-Saxon countries, they still appear less prevalent in consensus-oriented and neo-corporatist political regimes. To what extent do central characteristics of these countries shape the organizational characteristics and political activities of think tanks? We theoretically contribute to the existing literature on policy advice by drawing inspiration from niche theory, and empirically complement previous work by focusing on think tanks in Belgium, a country with a crowded and closed advisory landscape. Relying on a combination of data sources, our analysis highlights three central features of think tanks: (1) the long-term and anticipatory character of their policy advice, (2) the evidence-based nature of their policy work, and (3) their consensus-oriented mode of operating. The first two features echo what earlier studies in pluralist setting identified as key distinguishing characteristics. The third feature, their consensus-oriented mode of operating, represents a new element that turns out critical for understanding the niche of think tanks in Belgium. Its consensus-style tradition shows not only in how think tanks position themselves externally, but also in their internal organizational structure. Points for practitioners - Think tanks have potential to be key providers of policy advice, also in relatively closed systems with neo-corporatist traits. - In such settings, think tanks especially benefit from a consensual mode of operating, both internally and externally. - The long-term orientation of think tanks can set them apart from other providers of policy advice, such as interest groups and political party think tanks.","PeriodicalId":47811,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","volume":" 40","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The niche of think tanks in a consensus – seeking and neo-corporatist policy advisory system\",\"authors\":\"Bert Fraussen, Valérie Pattyn\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00208523231211541\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While think tanks are no longer solely a feature of Anglo-Saxon countries, they still appear less prevalent in consensus-oriented and neo-corporatist political regimes. To what extent do central characteristics of these countries shape the organizational characteristics and political activities of think tanks? We theoretically contribute to the existing literature on policy advice by drawing inspiration from niche theory, and empirically complement previous work by focusing on think tanks in Belgium, a country with a crowded and closed advisory landscape. Relying on a combination of data sources, our analysis highlights three central features of think tanks: (1) the long-term and anticipatory character of their policy advice, (2) the evidence-based nature of their policy work, and (3) their consensus-oriented mode of operating. The first two features echo what earlier studies in pluralist setting identified as key distinguishing characteristics. The third feature, their consensus-oriented mode of operating, represents a new element that turns out critical for understanding the niche of think tanks in Belgium. Its consensus-style tradition shows not only in how think tanks position themselves externally, but also in their internal organizational structure. Points for practitioners - Think tanks have potential to be key providers of policy advice, also in relatively closed systems with neo-corporatist traits. - In such settings, think tanks especially benefit from a consensual mode of operating, both internally and externally. - The long-term orientation of think tanks can set them apart from other providers of policy advice, such as interest groups and political party think tanks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Administrative Sciences\",\"volume\":\" 40\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Administrative Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231211541\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231211541","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: 0

摘要

虽然智库不再仅仅是盎格鲁-撒克逊国家的特色,但它们在以共识为导向和新社团主义的政治体制中似乎仍然不那么普遍。这些国家的核心特征在多大程度上塑造了智库的组织特征和政治活动?从理论上讲,我们通过从利基理论中汲取灵感,为现有的政策建议文献做出了贡献,并通过关注比利时的智库,在经验上补充了之前的工作,比利时是一个拥挤而封闭的咨询环境。基于多种数据来源,我们的分析突出了智库的三个核心特征:(1)政策建议的长期性和预见性;(2)政策工作的循证性;(3)以共识为导向的运作模式。前两个特征呼应了早期在多元主义背景下的研究所确定的关键区别特征。第三个特点是他们以共识为导向的运作模式,这代表了一个新的因素,对理解比利时智库的利基至关重要。它的共识式传统不仅体现在智库的外部定位上,也体现在其内部组织结构上。实践者的观点——智库有潜力成为政策建议的关键提供者,在具有新社团主义特征的相对封闭的系统中也是如此。-在这种情况下,智库特别受益于内部和外部双方同意的运作模式。-智库的长期定位可以使其区别于其他政策咨询提供者,如利益集团和政党智库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The niche of think tanks in a consensus – seeking and neo-corporatist policy advisory system
While think tanks are no longer solely a feature of Anglo-Saxon countries, they still appear less prevalent in consensus-oriented and neo-corporatist political regimes. To what extent do central characteristics of these countries shape the organizational characteristics and political activities of think tanks? We theoretically contribute to the existing literature on policy advice by drawing inspiration from niche theory, and empirically complement previous work by focusing on think tanks in Belgium, a country with a crowded and closed advisory landscape. Relying on a combination of data sources, our analysis highlights three central features of think tanks: (1) the long-term and anticipatory character of their policy advice, (2) the evidence-based nature of their policy work, and (3) their consensus-oriented mode of operating. The first two features echo what earlier studies in pluralist setting identified as key distinguishing characteristics. The third feature, their consensus-oriented mode of operating, represents a new element that turns out critical for understanding the niche of think tanks in Belgium. Its consensus-style tradition shows not only in how think tanks position themselves externally, but also in their internal organizational structure. Points for practitioners - Think tanks have potential to be key providers of policy advice, also in relatively closed systems with neo-corporatist traits. - In such settings, think tanks especially benefit from a consensual mode of operating, both internally and externally. - The long-term orientation of think tanks can set them apart from other providers of policy advice, such as interest groups and political party think tanks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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