			Home About us Contact

Public Policy-making (public + policy-making)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Humanities and Social Sciences	75%

Selected Abstracts

How Should Governments Make Risky Policy Decisions?

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Issue 3 2009
J. Brian Hardaker
Public policy-making does not follow the long-established and well-recognised principles of rational decision analysis under risk. Public views of risk are often inconsistent and seemingly irrational, and a gulf exists between risk perceptions and attitudes of the public and those of ,experts'. On the other hand, experts often claim unjustifiably high levels of confidence in their predictions of policy choice outcomes, creating a lack of public faith in their recommendations. While risky policy choices deserve more systematic decision analysis, many challenges remain to effective implementation of such analyses. Among the suggestions for improvement that we offer is the need for more effective interaction between policy-makers, decision analysts and the public. [source]

Ideas and Environmental Standard-Setting: A Comparative Study of Regulation of the Pulp and Paper Industry

GOVERNANCE, Issue 1 2002
Kathryn Harrison
This article examines the policy responses of Canada, Sweden, and the United States to the discovery of dioxins in pulp mill effluents and paper products, with particular attention to the impact of science and the scientific community on national environmental standards. Important areas of policy divergence were found, despite considerable scientific consensus among environmental scientists in the three jurisdictions, as the potential force of shared causal knowledge was undermined by competing domestic interests and different institutional contexts for decision-making. This analysis challenges the emphasis of the epistemic community literature on the role of scientists in promoting policy convergence, underscoring the importance of the interaction of ideas, interest group politics, and institutions in public policy-making. [source]

Leadership and Learning in Political Groups: The Management of Advice in the Iran-Contra Affair

GOVERNANCE, Issue 2 2001
Paul A. KowertArticle first published online: 17 DEC 200
For over two decades, the theory of groupthink proposed by Irving Janis has remained the most prominent analysis of group dynamics in policy-making. Suffering from its own popularity, groupthink has become a catch-all phrase without a clear meaning. Moreover, theories of group decision-making,even when applied to public policy-making,have typically ignored political variables, focusing almost exclusively on psychological arguments. This article offers three more narrowly construed propositions about policy-making groups: (1) that extremes in the distribution of power within a decision group reduces the integrative complexity of that group's deliberations and, thus, a leader's ability to learn; (2) that extremes in group size produce similar effects; and (3) that the integrative complexity of deliberations is improved when power concentration is appropriate to group size. An examination of the Reagan Administration's decision-making in two phases of the Iran-Contra affair lends support to these hypotheses and reveals the importance of political structure in decision group dynamics. [source]

The Rise of ,New' Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?

POLITICAL STUDIES, Issue 3 2005
Andrew Jordan
Governance is a term in good currency, but there are still too few detailed empirical analyses of the precise extent to which it has or has not eclipsed government. This article explores the temporal and spatial characteristics of the governance transition by charting the deployment of new policy instruments in eight industrialised states and the European Union. The adoption and implementation of (,old' and ,new') policy instruments offer a useful analytical touchstone because governance theory argues that regulation is the quintessence of government. Although there are many ,new' environmental policy instruments in these nine jurisdictions, this article finds that the change from government to governance is highly differentiated across political jurisdictions, policy sectors and even the main instrument types. Crucially, many of the new policy instruments used require some state involvement (that is, ,government'), and very few are entirely devoid of state involvement (that is, pure ,governance'). Far from eclipsing government, governance therefore often complements and, on some occasions, even competes with it, although there are some cases of fusion. Future research should thus explore the many complex and varied ways in which government and governance interact in public policy-making. [source]