Suchergebnisse

OVER A 20 YEAR PERIOD THE NATURE OF THE WATER POLICY PROCESS IN ENGLAND AND WALES HAS CHANGED QUITE RADICALLY. CONTRASTING AND CONTRADICTORY IMAGES OF THE POLICY PROCESS CAN BE CONSTRUCTED, REFLECTING THE EPISODIC NATURE OF THE POLICY PROCESS. HOWEVER, SOME LONG-TERM TRENDS ARE DISCERNIBLE. POLICY NETWORKS CONCEPTS (PARTICULARLY POLICY COMMUNITIES) HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING SOME OF THESE CHANGES, BUT THE MODEL HAS SIGNIFICANT LIMITATIONS IN ACCOUNTING FOR SECTOR-LEVEL POLICY CHANGE. MOREOVER, INSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES HAVE PROVED TO BE IMPORTANT IN CREATING BOTH CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIFFERENT POLICY ACTORS. IN GENERAL, THE SECTOR HAS BECOME MORE OPEN, MORE CONFLICTUAL, AND A WIDER RANGE OF INTERESTS, CONCERNS, AND IDEAS HAVE BEEN DRAWN INTO THE POLICY PROCESS. ALL OF THESE CHANGES HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INCREASING EUROPEANISATION OF POLICY-MAKING -ITSELF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES TO CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS OF BRITISH POLICY-MAKING.

In the wake of the privatizations which took place in 1980s, considers the nature and scope of the regulatory framework which has been put in place to regulate the privatized bodies. Looks at questions of monitoring, divisions of regulatory types and the way in which regulation works in practice.

Examines the place of interest groups in the consultative process in British policy making, stressing the importance of consultation even under the Thatcher government & distinguishing among consultation, bargaining, & negotiation. Identified is the important divide between the relatively few groups with privileged status & the greater number of groups who find themsleves consigned to less influential positions. The insider/outsider typology, often used to differentiate interest group strategies & status in policy development, is used to suggest that the insider group term is associated with a particular style of policy making, & offer amendments to the existing use of the terms to avoid the difficulties that occur from the conflation of group strategy & group status. 1 Table, 27 References. Adapted from the source document.

Interest groups are perceived as vehicles that can enhance the legitimacy of public institutions at the national and supranational level. However, the potential of these organizations to enhance democratic representation is often questioned and has rarely been systematically analysed. In this article, we examine the under-researched area of interest group accountability, a key component for groups to realize their democratic potential. To do this, we take an organization-centric and top-down perspective and develop a tailored analytical framework including three key dimensions—information, discussion and consequences. Drawing on data from a large-scale survey of interest groups active at the EU level, we find considerable variation in the extent to which groups demonstrate practices related to these three accountability dimensions. Furthermore, while receiving funding from EU institutions does not have any significant effect on interest group accountability, we find that organizations representing businesses interests more frequently develop accountability practices related to the dimensions of discussion and consequences, whereas citizen groups are more focused on the information dimension.