衡量设计多样性:奥斯特罗姆规则类型的新应用。

IF 4.9 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Policy Studies Journal Pub Date : 2022-05-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-20 DOI:10.1111/psj.12440
Claire A Dunlop, Jonathan C Kamkhaji, Claudio M Radaelli, Gaia Taffoni
{"title":"衡量设计多样性:奥斯特罗姆规则类型的新应用。","authors":"Claire A Dunlop,&nbsp;Jonathan C Kamkhaji,&nbsp;Claudio M Radaelli,&nbsp;Gaia Taffoni","doi":"10.1111/psj.12440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We draw on the Institutional Grammar Tool's rule types to empirically analyze the design of four major procedural regulatory instruments in the 27 member states of the European Union and the UK. They are: consultation, regulatory impact assessment, freedom of information, and the Ombudsman. By adopting the Institutional Grammar Tool as conceptual lens we end up with a single measurement template applicable to a variety of action situations. We derive measures that are conceptually robust and suitable for comparative analysis. With original data gathered on the official legal base in the 28 cases, we carry out principal components analysis. We identify design patterns across countries and instruments; the specialization of each instrument in terms of rule type; and the components that best explain cross-country variation. In the conclusions we argue that to reframe the design features of the four instruments in conceptual, theoretical categories is not simply a taxonomical exercise but it extends to the territory of comparative policy analysis, practice and reform.</p>","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":"50 2","pages":"432-452"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/psj.12440","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring design diversity: A new application of Ostrom's rule types.\",\"authors\":\"Claire A Dunlop,&nbsp;Jonathan C Kamkhaji,&nbsp;Claudio M Radaelli,&nbsp;Gaia Taffoni\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/psj.12440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We draw on the Institutional Grammar Tool's rule types to empirically analyze the design of four major procedural regulatory instruments in the 27 member states of the European Union and the UK. They are: consultation, regulatory impact assessment, freedom of information, and the Ombudsman. By adopting the Institutional Grammar Tool as conceptual lens we end up with a single measurement template applicable to a variety of action situations. We derive measures that are conceptually robust and suitable for comparative analysis. With original data gathered on the official legal base in the 28 cases, we carry out principal components analysis. We identify design patterns across countries and instruments; the specialization of each instrument in terms of rule type; and the components that best explain cross-country variation. In the conclusions we argue that to reframe the design features of the four instruments in conceptual, theoretical categories is not simply a taxonomical exercise but it extends to the territory of comparative policy analysis, practice and reform.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48154,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Studies Journal\",\"volume\":\"50 2\",\"pages\":\"432-452\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/psj.12440\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Studies Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12440\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Studies Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12440","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

我们利用制度语法工具的规则类型对欧盟27个成员国和英国的四个主要程序监管工具的设计进行了实证分析。它们是:咨询、监管影响评估、信息自由和申诉专员。通过采用制度语法工具作为概念透镜,我们最终得到了一个适用于各种行动情况的单一测量模板。我们推导出概念上稳健且适合于比较分析的度量。我们在28个案件的官方法律基础上收集原始数据,进行主成分分析。我们确定不同国家和工具的设计模式;每种工具在规则类型方面的专业化;以及最能解释跨国差异的因素。在结论中,我们认为在概念和理论范畴中重新构建这四种工具的设计特征不仅仅是一项分类学工作,而是延伸到比较政策分析、实践和改革的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Measuring design diversity: A new application of Ostrom's rule types.

Measuring design diversity: A new application of Ostrom's rule types.

We draw on the Institutional Grammar Tool's rule types to empirically analyze the design of four major procedural regulatory instruments in the 27 member states of the European Union and the UK. They are: consultation, regulatory impact assessment, freedom of information, and the Ombudsman. By adopting the Institutional Grammar Tool as conceptual lens we end up with a single measurement template applicable to a variety of action situations. We derive measures that are conceptually robust and suitable for comparative analysis. With original data gathered on the official legal base in the 28 cases, we carry out principal components analysis. We identify design patterns across countries and instruments; the specialization of each instrument in terms of rule type; and the components that best explain cross-country variation. In the conclusions we argue that to reframe the design features of the four instruments in conceptual, theoretical categories is not simply a taxonomical exercise but it extends to the territory of comparative policy analysis, practice and reform.

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
11.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: As the principal outlet for the Public Policy Section of the American Political Science Association and for the Policy Studies Organization (PSO), the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) is the premier channel for the publication of public policy research. PSJ is best characterized as an outlet for theoretically and empirically grounded research on policy process and policy analysis. More specifically, we aim to publish articles that advance public policy theory, explicitly articulate its methods of data collection and analysis, and provide clear descriptions of how their work advances the literature.
×
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