Suchergebnisse

Analyses of 'wicked problems' often lead to recommendations for collaborative governance as a metagovernance solution. The case of deadlocked European Union genetically modified crop authorization processes offers a good example. However, the stalemate is not the result of the inherent 'wickedness' of the problem posed by the risk of genetic modification technology applied to agricultural production of food and feed. Rather, the policy lock-in results from the structure and dynamics of the policy network. Rigid interactions between the same institutionalized policy actors sustain instigation and power games interlaced with question–answer or probing games that jointly reproduce a clash between differently structured problems over and over again. This has created a typical wrong-problem problem situation: the EC imposing 'safety' and 'consumer choice' of GM crops as a structured problem on member states, business interests and anti-GM NGOs that, for different reasons, saw the cultivation of GM crops as an uncertain and normatively conflicted activity. Neither of the issue network's opposing discourses and advocacy coalitions gained sufficient political power to bring their preferred problem structuring journeys to closure. Critical reflection on practices of problem structuring suggest scepticism about collaborative meta-governance and stakeholder dialogues as solutions to deal with wickedness. Instead, we argue that the European Commission's recent coping strategy constitutes incomplete but intelligent management of relational distances in regard to a complex problem.

AbstractThe concept of 'wicked problems' is a major current in the fields of policy analysis and planning. However, the basis of the concept has been insufficiently examined. This re-examination of its conceptual basis explains the origins of the limitations and flaws in the wicked problems concept. This paper analyses and rejects the notion of 'wicked problems' on philosophical and practical grounds. We argue instead that the policy sciences already had better conceptualizations of public problems before Rittel and Webber's flawed formulation. We return to this literature, and build upon it by reframing 'wickedness' in terms of higher and lower levels of problematicity in problem structuring efforts. In doing so, we offer an alternative, novel combination of the philosophy of questioning and the policy work approach to policy practice. 'Wickedness' is re-conceptualized as problematicity, conceived as the distance between those who question or inquire into a policy problem. This is primarily a political distance, articulated in terms of ideas, interests, institutions and practices. High problematicity arises only when wide political distances are explicitly maintained, such that partial answers cannot be reached. Practitioners deal with problematicity by a dual practical strategy of balancing closing-down and opening-up sub-questions to the problem in order to structure them such that they become amenable to action through partial answers. This simultaneously incorporates a politics of negotiating political distance via partisan adjustment and serial strategic analysis. The argument constitutes a theoretically and practically superior alternative to the 'wicked problems' perspective.

In this article, we intend to take a few steps to mending the disconnect between the academic study of policy processes and the many practices of professional and not‐so‐professional policy work. We argue, first, that the "toolkit" of academically warranted approaches to the policy process used in the representative mode may be ordered in a family tree with three major branches: policy as reasoned authoritative choice, policy as association in policy networks, and policy as problematization and joint meaning making. But, and this is our second argument, such approaches are not just representations to reflect and understand "reality". They are also mental maps and discursive vehicles for shaping and sometimes changing policy practices. In other words, they also serve performative functions. The purpose of this article is to contribute to policy theorists' and policy workers' awareness of these often tacit and "underground" selective affinities between the representative and performative roles of policy process theorizing.

The European Union's eastward enlargement cannot be explained by functionalism and liberal intergovernmentalism, which are the dominant rational choice theories about the developmental dynamics and governance of the European Union as a novel polity. These theories fail to explain how a process, supposedly characterized from its early stages by states bargaining to maximize their benefits, ends up with actual enlargement (in 2004 and 2007). Indeed, the high uncertainty and complexity that surrounded the EU negotiations made it difficult for the governments to define their preferences and narrow down the uncertainty. Precisely because of this, agenda-setting and problem framing played a substantial role in the pre-negotiation phase where the use of competing frames influenced the negotiation outcome. Therefore, in this paper, we explore social constructivist alternative theoretical approaches: does a theory based on identity formation, narrativity and problem structuring fare any better? More specifically: may we define a set of mechanisms which connects identity, through narratives and problem structuring, to a plausible eastward enlargement explanation? Applying social identity theory and problem structuring theory to the agenda-setting and negotiation process, we compare the policy frames and narratives present in the accession processes of 2004 and 2007. Emery Roe's method of narrative policy analysis is used for cross-case comparison, in which the 2007 cohort of accession states, Bulgaria and Romania, is treated as a least likely case. By linking the concept of narrative, as a vehicle to construct European identities, to that of enlargement, we show how the EU ended up trapped in the rhetorical cage of its own founding myth and the pan-European rhetoric of membership open to any European state respecting its founding principles. Only within the rhetorically constructed constraints do rational bargaining strategies gain plausibility -- reasoning serves only to justify a previous choice. Adapted from the source document.

This Handbook covers the accounts, by practitioners and observers, of the ways in which policy is formed around problems, how these problems are recognized and understood, and how diverse participants come to be involved in addressing them. H.K. Colebatch and Robert Hoppe draw together a range of original contributions from experts in the field to illuminate the ways in which policies are formed and how they shape the process of governing.

Frontmatter -- Table of Contents -- Preface -- A. Introduction -- 1. Understanding Policy Work / Colebatch, Hal / Hoppe, Robert / Noordegraaf, Mirko -- B. Accounts of Policy Work -- Introduction -- 2. Giving Accounts of Policy Work / Colebatch, Hal -- 3. Academic Accounts of Policy Experience / Noordegraaf, Mirko -- C. Constructing Meaning Through Policy Work -- Introduction -- 4. New Life for Old Buildings: Mediating Between Different Meanings / Metze, Tamara -- 5. Policy Workers Tinkering with Uncertainty: Dutch Econometric Policy Advice in Action / Vries, Annick de / Halffman, Willem / Hoppe, Rob -- D. Policy Work as Mediation -- Introduction -- 6. Managing the Problematic in Policy Work / Sterrenberg, Lydia -- 7. Evaluation as Policy Work: Puzzling and Powering in a Dutch Program for Sustainable Development / Loeber, Anne -- E. Policy Work Beyond the Nation-State -- Introduction -- 8. Policy Work Between National and International Contexts: Maintaining Ongoing Collaboration / Woeltjes, Tanja -- 9. Flying Blind in Brussels: How National Officials Do European Business Without Political Steering / Geuijen, Karin / Hart, Paul 't -- F. Linking Systemic and Experiential Knowledge -- Introduction -- 10. Is Evidence-Based Policy Making Really Possible? Reflections for Policymakers and Academics on Making Use of Research in the Work of Policy / Williams, Amanda -- 11. Locating the Work of Policy / Shore, Cris -- G. Conclusion -- 12. The Lessons for Policy Work / Colebatch, Hal / Hoppe, Robert / Noordegraaf, Mirko -- About the Authors -- Index of Names -- Index of Subjects

ABSTRACTThe hallmark of accountability in a democracy centres on the way the elected parliament holds the executive to account. If the parliament does not perform its oversight role effectively, lower authorities would have fewer incentives to do the same vis-à-vis local executives. In this article we therefore ask whether or not different meanings of accountability can be discerned amongst Tanzanian Members of Parliament (MPs). In our Q-method research we found four clearly identifiable discourses on accountability amongst Tanzanian MPs:Partycrats;My Electorate's Advocates;Frustrated Account Holders; andPragmatic Account Holders.We understand MPs discourses within the broader context of political clientelism and we argue that this combination of discourses, or accountability culture, enables the executive to rule in semi-autocratic ways. Even if opposition parties would obtain a parliamentary majority, this accountability culture stands in the way of achieving greater democratic responsiveness.

The 'eGovernance' hype around the potential of mobile phone and geoweb technologies for enhancing 'good governance' is soaring. In East Africa, the extensive use of mobile telephony adds to the imagined promises of ICT. We reflect on the assumptions made by the proponents of such tools, using our own action research project as an example. We took great care to consider context in the development of software for enhancing empowerment and accountability in rural water supply in Tanzania. However, we found that the rural water supply context in Tanzania is much more complex than the contexts for which successful mApps have been developed previously. Institutional analysis and public administration theory help to understand why. Rural water supply shows institutional hybridity, with water being at the same time a private, public and common-pool good. In addition, in accountability relations, many informal mechanisms prevail where explicit reporting is not relevant. Finally, our proposal sat uneasily with other ongoing iGovernment initiatives. We conclude that we need to consider eGovernance tools as political Apps that can be expected to trigger political responses