| 1. |
- Huitema, Dave, et al.
(författare)
-
The evaluation of climate policy: theory and emerging practice in Europe
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Policy Sciences. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0032-2687 .- 1573-0891. ; 44:2, s. 179-198
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Climate policy is a relatively young and dynamic area of public policy making. However, its development has attracted far more attention than the results it delivers in practice, which of course are the concern of policy evaluators. This article attempts to provide the first systematic cataloging of the emerging patterns of policy evaluation undertaken in different parts of the European Union. Theories of policy evaluation suggest that these evaluation practices should acknowledge the inherent complexity of climate policy making, be reflexive by questioning official policy goals, and be participatory. A meta-analysis of 259 climate policy evaluations suggests that current practice engages with some but not all of these issues. This article concludes by analyzing the implications of this finding for those in the academic and practitioner community who are keen to understand the extent to which climate policy evaluation is delivering on its promises.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lundin, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Policy sciences. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0032-2687 .- 1573-0891. ; 47:1, s. 25-49
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article analyzes the extent to which public administrators make use of expert knowledge (i.e., research or evaluation reports) when they prepare policy advice, and the extent to which politicians deliberate on the information provided to them by the administrators. The study is based on original, quantitative data from local politics in Sweden. We find that expert-informed policy advice from the administrators and critical reflection by the politicians are more pronounced when there is a lot of public attention. Furthermore, administrators use expert information more when they operate in a context in which there are large political disagreements. However, politicians deliberate less on the administrators' policy advices in such environments. Thus, conflict seems to generate a pressure on the administrators to search for expert knowledge. But at the same time, within a context of political disputes, politicians make less effort to understand and critically reflect over the information provided to them by the administration, and are less inclined to change their opinions even if good arguments are presented to them. Thus, the empirical analysis indicates that what role expertise gets in policy making is very much a consequence of the local political environment.
|
|
| 3. |
- Nedlund, Ann-Charlotte, 1977-, et al.
(författare)
-
Puzzling about problems : the ambiguous search for an evidence-based strategy for handling influx of health technology
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Policy sciences. - : Springer. - 0032-2687 .- 1573-0891. ; 47:4, s. 367-386
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper focuses on problem frame differences among actors (members of an advisory body, senior administrators and clinical unit managers) who are concerned with the introduction of new health technology at the regional level in Sweden. It explores issues related to problem framing, puzzling, powering, participation and the various rationales articulated in the ambiguous search for an evidence-based strategy to handle the influx of new technologies. The Health Technology Advisory Committee (HTAC) was established in one Swedish county council in 2004 with the intention of controlling both the introduction of health technology and supporting policy decision and clinical practice by promoting the use of best evidence. The HTAC followed a scientific rationality dominated by one problem frame, although the problematic situation, as it was framed by all the actor groups, was highly complex and not solely a matter of evidence. This paper illustrates how problem frame differences shape the puzzling of a policy problem and how the different distinguishable policy styles are dependent on who is participating and who is not participating in the puzzling.
|
|
