在欧盟更好的监管政策中协调参与性和循证决策:任务(im)可能吗?

IF 2.2 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Adriana Bunea, Joe Chrisp
{"title":"在欧盟更好的监管政策中协调参与性和循证决策:任务(im)可能吗?","authors":"Adriana Bunea, Joe Chrisp","doi":"10.1080/07036337.2022.2144848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Modern systems of governance are increasingly adopting measures aimed at fostering public participation in policymaking, while embedding decisions in scientific evidence under the label of Better Regulation policy. Existing research identifies tensions between participatory and evidence-based approaches. This prompts questions about one of the most ambitious reforms to combine and enhance participatory and evidence-based tools of policymaking, initiated by the European Commission in 2016. We assess the extent to which this reform successfully combined and expanded the participatory layer of supranational policymaking while also strengthening its evidence-based credentials by analysing stakeholders’ evaluations. We find that stakeholders assess both sets of measures as part of a single, integrated dimension. Participatory measures received slightly better appraisals and were better known, but both sets of measures were evaluated positively and there are no significant differences in evaluations across stakeholder categories. This points to the complementarity of measures from a stakeholder perspective.","PeriodicalId":47516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European Integration","volume":"45 1","pages":"729 - 750"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconciling participatory and evidence-based policymaking in the EU Better Regulation policy: mission (im)possible?\",\"authors\":\"Adriana Bunea, Joe Chrisp\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07036337.2022.2144848\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Modern systems of governance are increasingly adopting measures aimed at fostering public participation in policymaking, while embedding decisions in scientific evidence under the label of Better Regulation policy. Existing research identifies tensions between participatory and evidence-based approaches. This prompts questions about one of the most ambitious reforms to combine and enhance participatory and evidence-based tools of policymaking, initiated by the European Commission in 2016. We assess the extent to which this reform successfully combined and expanded the participatory layer of supranational policymaking while also strengthening its evidence-based credentials by analysing stakeholders’ evaluations. We find that stakeholders assess both sets of measures as part of a single, integrated dimension. Participatory measures received slightly better appraisals and were better known, but both sets of measures were evaluated positively and there are no significant differences in evaluations across stakeholder categories. This points to the complementarity of measures from a stakeholder perspective.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of European Integration\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"729 - 750\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of European Integration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2144848\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European Integration","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2022.2144848","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要现代治理体系正在越来越多地采取旨在促进公众参与决策的措施,同时将决策嵌入科学证据中,并贴上“更好的监管政策”的标签。现有研究确定了参与性方法和循证方法之间的紧张关系。这引发了人们对欧盟委员会于2016年发起的最雄心勃勃的改革之一的质疑,该改革旨在结合和加强参与性和循证决策工具。我们评估了这项改革在多大程度上成功地结合和扩大了超国家政策制定的参与层,同时通过分析利益攸关方的评估来加强其循证资格。我们发现,利益相关者将这两套措施作为一个单一、综合的维度进行评估。参与性措施得到的评价略好,也更为人所知,但这两套措施都得到了积极评价,各利益攸关方类别的评价没有显著差异。这表明,从利益攸关方的角度来看,各项措施是相辅相成的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reconciling participatory and evidence-based policymaking in the EU Better Regulation policy: mission (im)possible?
ABSTRACT Modern systems of governance are increasingly adopting measures aimed at fostering public participation in policymaking, while embedding decisions in scientific evidence under the label of Better Regulation policy. Existing research identifies tensions between participatory and evidence-based approaches. This prompts questions about one of the most ambitious reforms to combine and enhance participatory and evidence-based tools of policymaking, initiated by the European Commission in 2016. We assess the extent to which this reform successfully combined and expanded the participatory layer of supranational policymaking while also strengthening its evidence-based credentials by analysing stakeholders’ evaluations. We find that stakeholders assess both sets of measures as part of a single, integrated dimension. Participatory measures received slightly better appraisals and were better known, but both sets of measures were evaluated positively and there are no significant differences in evaluations across stakeholder categories. This points to the complementarity of measures from a stakeholder perspective.
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
6.40
自引率
6.90%
发文量
52
×
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