Suchergebnisse

Collaborative governance processes seek to engage diverse policy actors in the development and implementation of consensus‐oriented policy and management actions. Whether this is achieved, however, largely depends on the degree to which actors with different beliefs coordinate their actions to achieve common policy goals—a behavior known as cross‐coalition coordination. Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and collaborative governance literatures, this study analyzes cross‐coalition coordination in three collaborative environmental governance processes that seek to manage water in the Colorado River Basin. Through comparative analysis, it highlights the complex relationship among the institutional design of a collaborative governance process, how and why actors choose to engage in cross‐coalition coordination, and the consequent policy outputs they produce. The findings advance policy scholars' nascent understanding of cross‐coalition coordination and its potential to affect policymaking dynamics.

AbstractAs collaborative governance processes continue to grow in popularity, practitioners and policy scholars alike can benefit from the development of methods to better analyse and evaluate them. This article develops one such method by demonstrating how collaborative governance theory can be integrated with the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to better explain coalition dynamics, policy-oriented learning and policy change in collaborative contexts. I offer three theoretical propositions that suggest alternate relationships among ACF variables under collaborative governance arrangements and illustrate these propositions using interview data from an original case study of a collaborative governance process in Colorado, USA. The integration of collaborative governance theory with the ACF improves its application in collaborative contexts and provides new theoretical insights into the study and practice of collaborative governance.

AbstractHigh levels of conflict among coalitions in a policy process are often attributed to belief divergence and may lead to policy gridlock. Thus, reducing belief divergence may facilitate negotiation and open the door for policy change. Beliefs are notoriously difficult to change, however, especially in high‐conflict settings. Collaborative governance has been touted as one method for mitigating conflict to a level where negotiation is possible by means including but not limited to belief change. This study investigates the relationship between belief divergence as a driver of policy conflict and collaborative governance as a conflict mitigation tool by analyzing the beliefs of two opposing coalitions as they participate in a decade‐long collaborative environmental governance process that ended in negotiated agreement. Using longitudinal survey and interview data, we find that coalitions' beliefs diverge more at a later point in the process, due primarily to the reinforcement and strengthening of one coalition's beliefs; however, we also identify aspects of the collaborative process that helped foster negotiated agreement amidst this growing belief divergence. These findings can inform scholarship on conflict mitigation in environmental governance as well as the design of more effective collaborative processes in high‐conflict settings.

AbstractMultilevel governance is theorized to facilitate effective policy implementation by encouraging the use of local knowledge and expertise, enabling the participation of non‐government actors, and capitalizing on the coordinating and sanctioning authority of centralized governments. Whether a particular multilevel governance arrangement achieves this, however, depends in part on the degree to which it enables coordination among governmental and non‐governmental actors representing different levels and jurisdictions. Using a comparative case study of education governance reform in the United States, this study investigates how differences in state policy implementation approach impact the structure and mode of coordination in multilevel governance systems and considers the effects this has on policy implementation processes. The results indicate that a state's implementation approach impacts coordination by structuring how different levels of government interact, share information, and influence policy. Specifically, variation in the structure of the central governing agency directly enables or restricts the influence of bottom‐up coordination from lower levels of government. The results also highlight the theoretical limitations of current binary structure models of multilevel governance (i.e., centralized vs. decentralized, top‐down vs. bottom‐up, hierarchy vs. network) for capturing important nuances in policy coordination. These findings advance the understanding of policy coordination in multilevel governance systems and inform the design of institutional arrangements that balance trade‐offs in centralization and the delegation of authority across governance systems during policy implementation.

Policy actors use narratives strategically to attempt to influence the political contexts in which they participate. This study employs the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to examine policy actors' narratives around the issue of state‐level school choice policy. Specifically, we seek to determine why coalitions of policy actors use a narrative strategy called the devil‐angel shift. While traditional NPF hypotheses speculate that use of this strategy is driven by whether coalitions perceive themselves as policy winners or losers, recent studies suggest that use of this strategy may be better indicated by a coalition's policy position. To investigate this, we analyze legislative testimony related to two state‐level senate bills that sought to enact a universal school voucher program in Nevada. We find that a coalition's policy position better reflects their use of the devil‐angel shift narrative strategy over time, and we posit two potential explanations for the link between policy positions and narrative strategy.Related ArticlesErtas, Nevbahar. 2015. "Policy Narratives and Public Opinion Concerning Charter Schools." Politics & Policy 43 (3): 426‐451. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12120Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Mark K. McBeth, and Paul L. Hathaway. 2011. "Narrative Policy Framework: The Influence of Media Policy Narrative on Public Opinion." Politics & Policy 39 (3): 373‐400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00295.xSmith‐Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. "Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States." Politics & Policy 44 (6): 1053‐1088. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187

AbstractClimate change is a management and governance challenge requiring diverse potential responses. This article highlights the critical role public managers play in navigating the response diversity of such governance systems. Response diversity is the rule‐based set of options available for responding to unexpected service disruptions and is distinguished from ambiguity, which holds a negative valence within public administration. We first develop theoretical propositions about how institutions influence response diversity, drawing on public administration, resilience, and cognitive science research. Then, we use the Institutional Grammar and Institutional Network Analysis tools to empirically trace the rate‐making processes in two U.S. urban water utilities. We conclude that institutional designs do distinctively influence response diversity and are therefore key for evaluating the climate adaptability of heavily engineered infrastructure systems. Specifically, we identify important differences in the diversity of information, participation, and heuristics used for selecting investment strategies.

Integrating a diversity of stakeholder voices in policymaking processes can lead to more legitimate and widely supported laws and rules. While most attention to stakeholder participation in public decision processes has focused on legislative policymaking or the role of industry stakeholders in regulatory processes, strategic choices about participation by non-industry stakeholders in rulemaking remains largely overlooked, particularly at the state level. Previous research shows that agency rulemaking processes often provide greater procedural access to industry actors, who may significantly influence final rule content by bringing greater technical knowledge to bear on rulemaking processes. Less is understood about the strategies used by non-industry stakeholders, such as environmental advocacy groups, to influence regulatory decisions. This study, which compares environmental rulemaking processes across three issues in five states, finds that industry actors and environmental advocacy groups both use a variety of participation strategies classically thought to be "insider" and "outsider" strategies, and that these choices are motivated by reasons other than the perceived effectiveness of the strategy within the formal rulemaking process.

Despite sustained attention to the role of stakeholders in policymaking—both in legislative and regulatory venues—we lack a systematic understanding of whether and when stakeholders wield influence over decisions. This is particularly true regarding state‐level rulemaking in the United States, which has become an important venue of policy action as federal policymaking is increasingly stymied. Although the specifics of the rulemaking process vary to some degree across states, determining whether common patterns of stakeholder influence exist across states and issue areas can advance our understanding of regulatory institutions more broadly. This study contributes to the growing body of scholarship on state‐level rulemaking by analyzing the ways in which stakeholders participate in rulemaking processes and the effects on rulemaking decisions of such participation in three policy domains across five states. We find that while industry may be influential during rulemaking across cases, consequential opportunities for non‐industry stakeholders to influence regulatory decisions also exist.

Rulemaking is central to policymaking in the United States. Additionally, regulatory authority is devolved to the states in many instances. However, our knowledge of state-level rulemaking is not as advanced as that related to federal rulemaking. To advance the scholarship on state rulemaking, this study compares environmental rulemaking across three environmental issues (renewable portfolio standards, concentrated animal feeding operation regulations, and hydraulic fracturing disclosure rules) in five states (California, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania) to understand procedural and stakeholder participation commonalities among the cases. Using data from public rulemaking documents, stakeholder comment during rulemaking, and in-depth interviews with agency staff and stakeholders, the findings suggest that there are common patterns of pre-process informal stakeholder consultation, public comment and outreach mechanisms, and corollary issues related to stakeholder access across these cases. These findings advance our knowledge of state-level rulemaking as it relates to public input and procedural equity for stakeholders.

AbstractBecause bureaucratic agencies may be less transparent in their decision processes than legislatures, most states have developed processes to incorporate input from regulated communities and other parties potentially affected by regulations. Administrative agencies may encourage democratic practices to increase legitimacy and accountability of the bureaucracy and improve decision‐making processes. However, rules governing the regulatory process vary by state, with some incorporating more open practices than others. Understanding these dynamics is increasingly important, as the rulemaking process has become central to policymaking over the past several decades, with a large portion of policymaking authority delegated to administrative agencies. Drawing from regulatory documents, rulemaking comments, media coverage, and interviews with regulators in 14 regulatory decision processes across five states, this study finds that while states vary in their approach to providing access to information, there are overriding patterns that reduce the role of citizens and the overall transparency of regulatory processes.

As legislative venues are increasingly stymied by gridlock, much policymaking responsibility has devolved to the U.S. states. This article analyzes informational inputs and participation by actors within the rulemaking context, focusing on the level of state rulemaking. Specifically, we explore the rulemaking process in Colorado and North Carolina in two environmental sectors. Using data from documents and in-depth interviews, this study finds that goals of deliberative and open regulatory processes are not met in the cases studied here, in part due to informal pre-hearing processes established by agencies which can be navigated most successfully by the regulated community.

Abstract
In complex, polycentric environmental governance systems, actors may choose to collaborate with one another to reduce their collective vulnerability and enhance system function. However, collaboration can be costly, and little evidence exists for how particular collaborative forums impact the broader governance system in which they are embedded. To address this gap, we investigate the role of intermediate collaborative forums, which support collaboration among a subset of system actors, in polycentric governance systems. Empirically, we analyze the structural and functional role of an intermediate collaborative forum called the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMWUA) within the municipal surface water governance network for the Phoenix Metropolitan Area (PMA) in Arizona, United States. To do this, we draw from 21 interviews with water professionals in the PMA, which we analyze through a combination of network analysis and qualitative coding. We find that AMWUA facilitates strong bonding capacities among members, allowing for streamlined bridging to the rest of the network that enhances information processing and advocacy of member needs. Our findings advance theory on the role of collaboration in polycentric systems and inform the design of collaborative institutions to improve environmental governance.

This article introduces the special issue 'Transformational change through Public Policy'. After introducing the idea of transformational societal change, it asks how public policy scholarship can contribute to fostering it; the research questions we need to do so; what actors we need to study; who our audiences are; and how we need to expand our theories and methods. In our conclusion, we draw five lessons from the special issue articles. Transformational change (1) often results from many instances of policy changes over extended periods of time; (2) involves social movements that reconceptualise problems and possibilities; and (3) requires policy changes across sectors and levels of society, from local communities to national or global communities. As a field, Public Policy will (4) never offer detailed instructions to create transformational change in all circumstances, but (5) must involve scholars taking on different roles, from engaged scholarship to theory development that each provide unique contributions.