Making sense of policy theory

Here is my 2-pager for the ICPP Montreal conference panel called ‘Making Sense of (and Through) Policy Theory’. The panel’s description is:

The panel aims to bring authors and readers together in an open exploration of the way in which theory is used in the making and analysis of policy.  There are numerous books and journal special issues about policy and theory, but they do not always explain how they see the subject and why they address it in the way they do.  In this panel, the authors or editors of selected current texts will be invited to state how they see policy process theory, and how they chose to address it in their book, and a selection of readers, with varying relationships to the policy process and its analysis, will be invited to review these books the ways in which, and the extent to which, they found them useful in advancing their understanding of the policy process.

My contribution

In my first undergraduate year (1990), Jeremy Richardson presented an image of politics (generally written in partnership with Grant Jordan) – that I still use frequently to this day:

  • The size and scope of the state is so large that it is always in danger of becoming unmanageable. The same can be said of the crowded environment in which huge numbers of actors seek policy influence. Consequently, to all intents and purposes, policymakers manage complexity by breaking the state’s component parts into policy sectors and sub-sectors, with power spread across many parts of government.
  • Elected policymakers can only pay attention to a tiny proportion of issues for which they are responsible. So, they pay attention to a small number and ignore the rest. In effect, they delegate policymaking responsibility to other actors such as bureaucrats, often at low levels of government.
  • At this level of government and specialisation, bureaucrats rely on specialist organisations for information and advice. Those organisations trade that information/advice and other resources for access to, and influence within, the government (other resources may relate to who groups represent – such as a large, paying membership, an important profession, or a high status donor or corporation).
  • Most public policy is conducted primarily through small and specialist policy communities that process issues at a level of government not particularly visible to the public, and with minimal senior policymaker involvement.
  • This description of ‘policy communities’ suggests that senior elected politicians are less important than people think, their impact on policy is questionable, and elections and changes of government may not provide the changes in policy that many expect.
  • Initially, Jordan and Richardson were addressing the worry in the 1970s that alternating parties of government were damaging UK politics. We can still find the same kinds of contrast between the popular image of centralist, majoritarian Westminster politics and academic studies of policymaking.
  • Jordan and Richardson also described the influence of US studies of interest groups and subsystems, to suggest they were describing the UK brand of an international product.

Since then, I have been interested in the extent to which key aspects of such arguments are ‘universal’ (abstract enough to apply to all systems/ times) or specific to systems and eras. Tanya Heikkila, Matt Wood, and I have just described multi-centric policymaking, which:

  1. can be abstract enough to apply universally, since so much of policy studies is based on exploring the implications of bounded rationality and complexity, but
  2. academics make sense of these concepts in very different ways, partly to reflect their preferred approaches, and partly to describe the different ways in which policy actors deal with bounded rationality and complexity in specific contexts.

My main contribution to this discussion is a picture that looks like a turtle. I use it to describe policymaking to non-specialists and reflect on this description with other specialists.

image policy process round 2 25.10.18

It projects the sense that people combine (say) cognition and emotion to make choices, and they do so within a complex policymaking environment consisting of many actors spread across many venues, each with their own rules, networks, ways of seeing the world, and ways of responding to socio-economic factors and events. The centre of the picture does not describe a centre of government, and the lines between each factor do not imply causation.

For me, these concepts represent my attempt – while going solo in Understanding Public Policy and describing ‘evidence based policymaking’ or as co-author with Tanya Heikkila or Chris Weible – to synthesise insights from many policy theories, subject to these kinds of limitations:

  1. Different academics describe each concept in remarkably different ways.
  2. Some differences seem irreconcilable. At least, we should not take synthesis lightly.
  3. The US or Global North provides the primary lens through which to view the world of policymaking. Applying that lens to Global South countries may be useful in one sense (to analyse policymaking systematically) but damaging in another (to treat some experiences as normal and others as meeting the norm or representing outliers).
  4. White male professors seem the most likely to tell these stories of policymaking. One response, explored in the 2nd edition of UPP, is to describe the problem and commit to making continuous changes. Another is to encourage far more voices as part of a series of textbooks on policymaking. I will use part of my talk to encourage such submissions to the Palgrave series that I edit, while acknowledging that the opportunities to engage, and rewards for engagement, are not shared equally.

See also:

Leave a comment

Filed under public policy

Beware the well-intentioned advice of unusually successful academics

This post – by Dr Kathryn Oliver and me – originally appeared on the LSE Impact Blog. I have replaced the picture of a thumb up with a cat hanging in there. 

Many academics want to see their research have an impact on policy and practice, and there is a lot of advice on how to seek it. It can be helpful to take advice from experienced and successful people. However, is this always the best advice? Guidance based on best practice and success stories in particular, often reflect unequal access to policymakers, institutional support, and credibility attached to certain personal characteristics.

To take stock of the vast amount of advice being offered to academics, we decided to compare it with the more systematic analyses available in the peer-reviewed literature, on the ‘barriers’ between evidence and policy, and policy studies. This allowed us to situate this advice in a wider context, see whether it was generalisable across settings and career stages, and to think through the inconsistencies and dilemmas which underlie these suggestions.

The advice: Top tips on influencing policy

The key themes and individual recommendations we identified from the 86 most-relevant publications are:

  1. Do high quality research: Use well-established research designs, methods, or metrics.
  2. Make your research relevant and readable: Provide easily-understandable, clear, relevant and high-quality research. Aim for the general reader. Produce good stories based on emotional appeals or humour.
  3. Understand the policymaking context. Note the busy and constrained lives of policy actors. Maximise established ways to engage, such as in advisory committees. Be pragmatic, accepting that research rarely translates directly into policy.
  4. Be ‘accessible’ to policymakers. This may involve discussing topics beyond your narrow expertise. Be humble, courteous, professional, and recognise the limits to your skills.
  5. Decide if you want to be an ‘issue advocate’. Decide whether to simply explain the evidence, remain an ‘honest broker, or recommend specific policy options. Negative consequences may include peer criticism, being seen as an academic lightweight, being used to add legitimacy to a policy position, and burnout.
  6. Build relationships (and ground rules) with policymakers: Relationship-building requires investment and skills, but working collaboratively is often necessary. Academics could identify policy actors to provide insights into policy problems, act as champions for their research, and identify the most helpful policy actors.
  7. Be ‘entrepreneurial’ or find someone who is. Be a daring, persuasive scientist, comfortable in policy environments and available when needed. Or, seek brokers to act on your behalf.
  8. Reflect continuously: should you engage, do you want to, and is it working? Academics may enjoy the work or are passionate about the issue. Even so, keep track of when and how you have had impact, and revise your practices continuously.

hang-in-there-baby

Inconsistencies and dilemmas

This advice tends not to address wider issues. For example, there is no consensus over what counts as good evidence for policy, or therefore how best to communicate good evidence. We know little about how to gain the wide range of skills that researchers and policymakers need to act collectively, including to: produce evidence syntheses, manage expert communities, ‘co-produce’ research and policy with a wide range of stakeholders, and be prepared to offer policy recommendations as well as scientific advice. Further, a one-size fits-all model won’t help researchers navigate a policymaking environment where different venues have different cultures and networks. Researchers therefore need to decide what policy engagement is for—to frame problems or simply measure them according to an existing frame—and how far researchers should go to be useful and influential. If academics need to go ‘all in’ to secure meaningful impact, we need to reflect on the extent to which they have the resources and support to do so. This means navigating profound dilemmas:

Source: The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics

 

Can academics try to influence policy? The financial costs of seeking impact are prohibitive for junior or untenured researchers, while women and people of colour may be more subject to personal abuse. Such factors undermine the diversity of voices available.

How should academics influence policy? Many of these new required skills – such as storytelling – are not a routine part of academic training, and may be looked down on by our colleagues.  

What is the purpose of academics engagement in policymaking? To go beyond tokenistic and instrumental engagement is to build genuine rapport with policymakers, which may require us to co-produce knowledge and cede some control over the research process. It involves a fundamentally different way of doing public engagement: one with no clear aim in mind other than to listen and learn, with the potential to transform research practices and outputs.

Where is the evidence that this advice helps us improve impact?

The existing advice offered to academics on how to create impact is – although often well-meaning – not based on systematic research or comprehensive analysis of empirical evidence. Few advice-givers draw clearly on key literatures on policymaking or evidence use. This leads to significant misunderstandings, which can have potentially costly repercussions for research, researchers and policy.  These limitations matter, as they lead to advice which fails to address core dilemmas for academics—whether to engage, how to engage, and why—which have profound implications for how scientists and universities should respond to the calls for increased impact.

Most tips focus on individual experience, whereas engagement between research and policy is driven by systemic factors. Many of the tips may be sensible and effective, but often only within particular settings. The advice is likely to be useful mostly to a relatively similar group of people who are confident and comfortable in policy environments, and have access and credibility within policy arenas. Thus, the current advice and structures may help reproduce and reinforce existing power dynamics and an underrepresentation of people who do not fit a very narrow mould.

The overall result may be that each generation of scientists has to fight the same battles, and learn the same lessons over again. Our best response as a profession is to interrogate current advice, shape and frame it, and to help us all to find ways to navigate the complex practical, political, moral and ethical challenges associated with being researchers today. The ‘how to’ literature can help, but only if authors are cognisant of their wider role in society and complex policymaking systems.

This blog post is based on the authors’ co-written articles, The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: a systematic review of advice to academics, published in Palgrave Communications, and ‘How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact?’  published in Political Studies Review 

About the authors

Kathryn Oliver is Associate Professor of Sociology and Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (@oliver_kathryn ). Her interest is in how knowledge is produced, mobilized and used in policy and practice, and how this affects the practice of research. She co-runs the research collaborative Transforming Evidence with Annette Boaz. https://transformure.wordpress.com and her writings can be found here: https://kathrynoliver.wordpress.com

Paul Cairney is Professor of Politics and Public Policy, University of Stirling, UK (@Cairneypaul).  His research interests are in comparative public policy and policy theories, which he uses to explain the use of evidence in policy and policymaking, in one book (The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making, 2016), several articles, and many, many blog posts: https://paulcairney.wordpress.com/ebpm/

See also:

  1. Adam Wellstead, Paul Cairney, and Kathryn Oliver (2018) ‘Reducing ambiguity to close the science-policy gap’, Policy Design and Practice, 1, 2, 115-25 PDF
  2. Paul Cairney and Kathryn Oliver (2017) ‘Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?’ Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS), DOI: 10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x PDF AM
  3. Paul Cairney, Kathryn Oliver, and Adam Wellstead (2016) ‘To Bridge the Divide between Evidence and Policy: Reduce Ambiguity as Much as Uncertainty’, Public Administration Review, 76, 3, 399–402 DOI:10.1111/puar.12555 PDF

1 Comment

Filed under Evidence Based Policymaking (EBPM), Folksy wisdom, public policy, Storytelling, UK politics and policy

Can Westminster take back control after Brexit?

All going well, this discussion will be in a box in Chapter 8 of Understanding Public Policy 2nd ed.

“The ‘Brexit’ referendum was dominated by a narrative of taking back control of policy and policy making. Control of policy would allow the UK government to make profound changes to immigration and spending. Control of policymaking would allow Parliament and the public to hold the UK government directly to account, in contrast to a more complex and distant EU policy process less subject to direct British scrutiny.

Such high level political debate is built on the false image of a small number of elected policymakers – and the Prime Minister in particular – responsible for the outcomes of the policy process.

There is a strange disconnect between the ways in which elected politicians and elected policymakers describe UK policymaking. Ministers have mostly given up the language of control; modern manifestos no longer make claims – such as to secure ‘full employment’ or eradicate health inequalities – that suggest they control the economy or can solve problems by providing public services. Yet, much Brexit rhetoric suggests that a vote to leave the EU will put control back in the hands of ministers to solve major problems.

The main problem with the latter way of thinking is that it is rejected continuously in the modern literature on policymaking. Policymaking is multi-centric: responsibility for outcomes is spread across many levels and types of government, to the extent that it is not possible to simply know who is in charge and to blame.

Some multi-level governance (MLG) relates to the choice to share power with EU, devolved, and local policymaking organisations.

However, most MLG is necessary because ministers do not have the cognitive or coordinative capacity to control policy outcomes.

They can only pay attention to a tiny proportion of their responsibilities, and have to delegate the rest. Most decisions are taken in their name but without their intervention. They occur within a policymaking environment over which ministers have limited knowledge and control.

The problem with using Brexit as a lens through which to understand British politics is that it emphasises the choice to no longer spread power across a political system, without acknowledging the necessity of doing so.

Our understanding of the future of UK policy and policymaking is incomplete without a focus on the concepts and evidence that help us understand why UK ministers must accept their limitations and act accordingly.

Yet, clearly the Westminster model archetype remains important even if it does not exist (Duggett, 2009). Policy studies have challenged successfully its image of central control, but, the model’s importance resides in its rhetorical power in wider politics when people maintain a simple argument during general election and referendum debates: we know who is – or should be – in charge. This perspective has a profound effect on the ways in which policymakers defend their actions, and political actors compete for votes, even when it is ridiculously misleading (Rhodes, 2013; Bevir, 2013)”

See also Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: the Westminster Model and Multi-level Governance

1 Comment

Filed under POLU9UK, public policy, UK politics and policy

Understanding Public Policy 2nd edition?

Almost. I have done a full draft that I will redraft one more time following external feedback and review (then during copy-editing). I am hoping that you might also read some of it and give me feedback, if only to point out big mistakes before it is too late. To be honest, by this stage, I won’t be adding major new sections or chapters (and I no longer want to read this thing), but please let me know if there are big gaps that I should fill in the third edition.

I have included below the introduction and conclusion (and each chapter should also have its own entry (or multiple entries) in the 1000 Words and 500 Words series) and invite you to get in touch – via email or Twitter DM – if you would like a copy of the whole thing.

Preface

Chapter 1 Introduction to policy and policymaking

Chapter 13 Conclusion

New references

Old references

If you would like to see the likely cover:

2nd ed cover

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under 1000 words, 500 words, agenda setting, Evidence Based Policymaking (EBPM), Policy learning and transfer, public policy

Putting it all together: dissertation research question and research design (POLU9RM)

Writing a dissertation can be daunting. It is likely the longest piece of work you will plan as an undergraduate (10000 words plus bibliography) but, when you are done, it will not seem long enough.

On the one hand, it is a joyous exploration of research, in which you receive supervision but are in charge. On the other, you don’t want it to go horribly wrong.

It seems unlikely that reading my blog will spark joy, but I can at least give you some tips to avoid unnecessary problems and make your dissertation manageable.

Other advice (such as the reading in your module guide) is available, and I suggest you take it. Indeed, whenever I speak with colleagues about my approach to supervision, it seems relatively conservative and joyless.

On the other hand, why not play it safe with the dissertation then use all the time you’ve saved by seeking joy in a lovely meadow or a summer’s day?

  1. Ask the right research question.

Most undergraduate coursework involves answering your lecturer’s rather generic question. Your task is to produce something a bit different, with some of these characteristics:

  • You should find it interesting and want to answer it.
  • It should be something that you can answer.
  • It should be specific enough to help you manage your time well and answer it with the resources you have.

Compare with Halperin and Heath’s (p164) criteria, in which it should be important, ‘researchable’, and it has not been ‘answered definitively’.

(also compare with Dunleavy’s call for full narrative titles)

For example, many projects that I supervise follow roughly the same format: what is policy, how much has it changed, and why?

We can then narrow it down in several ways by choosing a specific issue, political system, time period, and/ or aspect of policy change.

This narrowing can make the difference between:

(a) feeling the need to explain many theories in the literature review, versus

(b) limiting theory selection by focusing on a small number of political system dynamics.

Action point 1

Describe your initial question or theme with your supervisor, and work with them until you are both happy with the question.

  1. Write the abstract and the introduction first?

Many people suggest that your first main piece of work should be the literature review, for quite good reasons:

  • It allows you to gain enough initial knowledge to help you guide your research
  • It allows you to get writing – often a major stumbling block – and then edit later

I suggest that your first piece of work should be the abstract and introduction for these reasons:

  • Writing a half page abstract allows you to describe what your project adds up to.
  • It really helps you discuss your plans with your supervisor
  • Writing the introduction allows you to describe your research design in enough depth to reflect on it is coherence and feasibility.
  • All going well, it will be only a small jump from your POLU9RM ‘research project design’ exercise.
  • It allows you to make sense of a quite general format for research publications (in many fields): theory, method, results.

Action point 2

Write the question/ title and abstract, share it with your likely supervisor, and talk about how coherent and feasible your plan looks.

  1. Identify the relevant theory or literature.

In some cases, the potentially relevant literature is vast if you have, for example:

  1. A too-general question about political parties or elections.
  • One good solution is to select a subfield like ‘pledge fulfilment’
  1. A too-general question about policy change.

Action point 3.

Make sure to connect your research question to a well-defined literature (and do a preliminary literature search to see what is out there)

  1. Identify your method to gather information.

Halperin and Heath’s chapter 7 goes into some depth about the principles of research design:

  • what data collection is appropriate
  • what we can deduce from certain data
  • how confident you can be about cause/effect in this case (internal validity)
  • and cause-and-effect more generally (external validity)
  • if someone could do your research and get the same results (reliability)

They also describe the types of design you can likely not do (well, 1 and 2) in a UG dissertation, but can get the data to analyse:

  1. Experimental (like an RCT)
  2. Cross-sectional and longitudinal
  3. Comparative (for which I did a separate post)

Then they describe data gathering strategies that you might be tempted to do (subject to ethical clearance):

  • Surveys
  • Interviews
  • Focus groups
  • Ethnographic
  • Discourse analysis

In the lecture, I will put on my dour face and warn you against most of these methods, for reasons such as:

  • Doing a proper survey takes a lot of time and resources, someone has likely already done a better one, and it would be a shame not to find it
  • You can often find things in the public record without interviewing someone (and maybe they will only repeat what is out there)
  • The ethical clearance will be a major issue with ethnographic (and other) methods

I won’t try to put you off entirely. Rather, I will encourage you to ask yourself:

  • Why are you choosing this method?
  1. Does it relate clearly to your research question?
  2. Or, have you begun with the most interesting sounding method?
  3. Or, do you have some sort of connection that gets you access, which seems a shame not to use?
  • Are you prepared to do a literature review on your chosen method?
  • What do you realistically expect to get from your method?
  • What will you do if it goes wrong?

Action point 4

Discuss your choice of data collection with your supervisor.

  1. Think about how you will analyse and interpret the results.

This part tends to make the difference between a very good or an excellent dissertation.

Put most simply, simple description involves summarising things. Analysis is about telling the reader what the results mean. For example, you might:

  • Evaluate the size of the results according to your expectations. Does a survey result seem unusual?
  • Describe how much one should rely on the results. Does the result seem important after taking into account a margin of error?
  • Describe the wider context. Does the result mark a change over time, or seem different from another country?
  • Relate a case study result to your literature review. Is your case unusual, or as expected?

Action point 5

Clarify the difference between summary and analysis

  1. Be clear about the conclusion.

Don’t just to the dissertation equivalent of saying ‘cheerio’ (or, my favourite thing, leaving without saying cheerio).

The conclusion differs from:

  • The introduction, because you should use it to summarise your question and approach (perhaps quite briefly) and relate it in some depth to the results.
  • The analysis of results, because you relate the results much more clearly to your overall project.

Don’t think of it as saying: ‘as I have said before …’

Think of it as saying: ‘here is what it all adds up to …’

  1. The end.

Remember to add your bibliography and ask yourself if you need an appendix for your data (which does not count towards the word count).

POLU9RM action points

PS some of my supervisees write policy analysis reports, which differ somewhat from regular dissertations. If you are keen, please see me and/ or read more here.

hang-in-there-baby

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Research design

Policy in 500 Words: The advocacy coalition framework

Here is the ACF story.

People engage in politics to turn their beliefs into policy. They form advocacy coalitions with people who share their beliefs, and compete with other coalitions. The action takes place within a subsystem devoted to a policy issue, and a wider policymaking process that provides constraints and opportunities to coalitions.

The policy process contains multiple actors and levels of government. It displays a mixture of intensely politicized disputes and routine activity. There is much uncertainty about the nature and severity of policy problems. The full effects of policy may be unclear for over a decade. The ACF sums it up in the following diagram:

acf

Policy actors use their beliefs to understand, and seek influence in, this world. Beliefs about how to interpret the cause of and solution to policy problems, and the role of government in solving them, act as a glue to bind actors together within coalitions.

If the policy issue is technical and humdrum, there may be room for routine cooperation. If the issue is highly charged, then people romanticise their own cause and demonise their opponents.

The outcome is often long-term policymaking stability and policy continuity because the ‘core’ beliefs of coalitions are unlikely to shift and one coalition may dominate the subsystem for long periods.

There are two main sources of change.

  1. Coalitions engage in policy learning to remain competitive and adapt to new information about policy. This process often produces minor change because coalitions learn on their own terms. They learn how to retain their coalition’s strategic advantage and use the information they deem most relevant.
  2. ‘Shocks’ affect the positions of coalitions within subsystems. Shocks are the combination of external events – such as the election of a new government with different ideas, or the effect of socio-economic change – and the reaction by coalitions. Events may prompt major change as members of a dominant coalition question their beliefs in the light of new evidence (internal shock). Or, another coalition may adapt more readily to its new policy environment and exploit events to gain competitive advantage (external shock).

The ACF began as the study of US policymaking, focusing largely on environmental issues. It has changed markedly to reflect the widening of ACF scholarship to new policy areas, political systems, and methods.

For example, the flow diagram’s reference to the political system’s long term coalition opportunity structures is largely the response to insights from comparative international studies:

  • A focus on the ‘degree of consensus needed for major policy change’ reflects applications in Europe that highlighted the important of proportional electoral systems
  • A focus on the ‘openness of the political system’ partly reflects applications to countries without free and fair elections, and/ or systems that do not allow people to come together easily as coalitions to promote policy change.

As such, like all theories in this series, the ACF discusses elements that it would treat as (a) universally applicable, such as the use of beliefs to address bounded rationality, and (b) context-specific, such as the motive and opportunity of specific people to organize collectively to translate their beliefs into policy.

See also:

The 500 and 1000 Words series

Why Advocacy Coalitions Matter and How to Think about Them

Three lessons from a comparison of fracking policy in the UK and Switzerland

Bonus material

Scottish Independence and the Devil Shift

Image source: Weible, Heikkila, Ingold, and Fischer (2016: 6)

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under 500 words, public policy

Policy in 500 Words: Ecology of Games

The ‘Ecology of Games Framework’ (EG) combines insights from many approaches to analyze ‘institutional complexity’ and ‘complex institutional systems’.

The focus is on actors learning how to secure ‘mutually beneficial outcomes’, cooperating to produce and deliver agreed solutions, and bargaining within a system over which no actor has control. Therefore, it is worth reading the posts on game theory, the IAD, and SES first (especially if, like me, you associated ‘game’ with tig, then Monopoly, then The Wire).

Dz3Hmy2VsAAoO72.png

Insights from three key approaches

EG connects Norton’s ‘ecology of games’, the IAD, and insights from complexity theory to reinforce the idea that institutional arrangements are not simple and orderly.

In simple games, we need only analyse the interaction between a small number of actors with reference to one set of self-contained rules providing clear sanctions or payoffs. In real world policymaking, many different games take place at the same time in different venues.

Some policy games may be contained within a geographical area – such as California – but there are no self-contained collective action problems:

  • Examples such as ‘biodiversity’, ‘ecology’ or ‘environmental’ policies command a collection of interdependent policies relating to issues like local planning, protected species, water management, air pollution, transport, energy use, and contributors to such policies or policy problems in other areas of government (such as public services).
  • Each contributor to policy may come from different institutions associated with many policymaking venues spread across many levels and types of government.

Consequently, many games interact with each other. The same actor might participate in multiple games subject to different rules. Further, each game produces ‘externalities’ for the others; the ‘payoffs’ to each game are connected and complicated.

A focus on ‘complex adaptive systems’ suggests that central governments do not have the resources to control – or understand fully – interaction at this frequency and scale. Rather, policymaking influences are:

  • Internal to the game, when actors (a) follow and shape the rules of each institution, and (b) learn through trial and error.
  • External to the game, when physical resources change, or central levels of government change the resources of local actors.

Insights from the wider literature

The EG brings in wider insights – from theories in the 500 and 1000 Words series – to analyse this process. Examples include:

Consequently, we have come a long way from simple assumptions about human behaviour outlined in our first post in this series.

As with the IAD, the EG emphasis is on (a) finding solutions to complex (largely environmental) policy problems, with reference to (b) initiatives consistent with self-organising systems such as ‘collaborative governance’. Like most posts in this series, it rejects a naïve attachment to a single powerful central government. Policymaking is multi-centric, and solutions to complex problems will emerge in that context.

See also:

Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD) and Governing the Commons

Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: it’s time for some game theory

Policy in 500 Words: the Social-Ecological Systems Framework

Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: Rational Choice and the IAD (the older post for the 1st edition)

Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: Multi-centric Policymaking

How to Navigate Complex Policy Designs

How can governments better collaborate to address complex problems?

 

3 Comments

Filed under 500 words, public policy