理念、联盟影响力和政策变化:比较四个后发国家幼儿教育和保育政策扩张的差异

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Sam Mohun Himmelweit, Sung-Hee Lee
{"title":"理念、联盟影响力和政策变化:比较四个后发国家幼儿教育和保育政策扩张的差异","authors":"Sam Mohun Himmelweit, Sung-Hee Lee","doi":"10.1017/gov.2022.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article examines variation in early childhood education and care (ECEC) expansion in four ‘latecomer’ reformers: Germany, England, South Korea and Japan. Taking a comparative approach through an analysis of policy documents, it focuses on the role of ideas as coalition magnets in explaining the more extensive and sustained policy shifts in Germany and Korea, in contrast to the more limited and fragmented reforms in England and Japan. As the comparative literature struggles to explain variation in ECEC expansion, this focus on ideas provides a significant contribution, highlighting why ECEC reform became supported by a broad cross-class coalition in Germany and Korea but not in England or Japan. The theoretical contribution argues that coalition magnets are formed when the polysemic potential of a policy is drawn out by key actors strategically linking it to several problem definitions, which can appeal to diverse political actors and forge lasting consensus for reform.","PeriodicalId":47758,"journal":{"name":"Government and Opposition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ideas, Coalition Magnets and Policy Change: Comparing Variation in Early Childhood Education and Care Policy Expansion across Four Latecomer Countries\",\"authors\":\"Sam Mohun Himmelweit, Sung-Hee Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/gov.2022.35\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article examines variation in early childhood education and care (ECEC) expansion in four ‘latecomer’ reformers: Germany, England, South Korea and Japan. Taking a comparative approach through an analysis of policy documents, it focuses on the role of ideas as coalition magnets in explaining the more extensive and sustained policy shifts in Germany and Korea, in contrast to the more limited and fragmented reforms in England and Japan. As the comparative literature struggles to explain variation in ECEC expansion, this focus on ideas provides a significant contribution, highlighting why ECEC reform became supported by a broad cross-class coalition in Germany and Korea but not in England or Japan. The theoretical contribution argues that coalition magnets are formed when the polysemic potential of a policy is drawn out by key actors strategically linking it to several problem definitions, which can appeal to diverse political actors and forge lasting consensus for reform.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Government and Opposition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Government and Opposition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2022.35\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Government and Opposition","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2022.35","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文考察了四个“后来者”改革者(德国、英国、韩国和日本)在幼儿教育和护理(ECEC)扩张方面的变化。通过对政策文件的分析,采用了比较的方法,重点关注了作为联盟磁石的思想在解释德国和韩国更广泛和持续的政策转变方面的作用,而英国和日本的改革则更为有限和分散。当比较文献难以解释欧共体扩张的变化时,这种对思想的关注做出了重大贡献,突出了为什么欧共体改革得到了德国和韩国广泛的跨阶级联盟的支持,而英国或日本却没有。理论贡献认为,当一项政策的多义性潜力被关键行为者从战略上将其与几个问题定义联系起来时,就会形成联盟磁石,这可以吸引不同的政治行为者,并为改革达成持久的共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ideas, Coalition Magnets and Policy Change: Comparing Variation in Early Childhood Education and Care Policy Expansion across Four Latecomer Countries
This article examines variation in early childhood education and care (ECEC) expansion in four ‘latecomer’ reformers: Germany, England, South Korea and Japan. Taking a comparative approach through an analysis of policy documents, it focuses on the role of ideas as coalition magnets in explaining the more extensive and sustained policy shifts in Germany and Korea, in contrast to the more limited and fragmented reforms in England and Japan. As the comparative literature struggles to explain variation in ECEC expansion, this focus on ideas provides a significant contribution, highlighting why ECEC reform became supported by a broad cross-class coalition in Germany and Korea but not in England or Japan. The theoretical contribution argues that coalition magnets are formed when the polysemic potential of a policy is drawn out by key actors strategically linking it to several problem definitions, which can appeal to diverse political actors and forge lasting consensus for 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
Government and Opposition
Government and Opposition POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Government and Opposition has been a leading international journal of comparative politics for over 40 years. Its distinctive voice amongst politics journals has ensured a large, worldwide circulation. Government and Opposition"s interests include: - developments in the theory and practice of democracy, including significant elections the evolution of political parties, and the consequences of new political challenges for governments and oppositions - the governance of the global economy and the implications of interdependence worldwide politics - including the politics of the European Union - major issues of public policy, especially from a comparative perspective theoretical and ethical dimensions of political issues and policy.
×
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