Functional regulatory spaces

Varone, Frédéric; Nahrath, Stéphane; Aubin, David; Gerber, Jean-David

doi:10.1007/s11077-013-9174-1

Cited by 78 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the first, although the current policy integration body of literature primarily focuses on horizontal integration between domains or services (Tosun and Lang 2013), similar integration challenges arise in multi-level governance contexts (Briassoulis 2011). A promising way of expanding the framework in this respect is by linking it to the notion of 'functional regulatory spaces,' which span several policy sectors, governance levels, and institutional territories (Varone et al 2013). Regarding the integration of policy outcomes, as Jordan and Lenschow (2010) observe, relatively little research has been conducted on the effects of better integrated policy approaches on actual practices on the ground.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a processual understanding of policy integration

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of policy integration in the governance of cross-cutting policy problems has attracted increasing scholarly attention in recent years. Nevertheless, the concept of policy (dis)integration is still under theorized, particularly regarding its inherent processual nature. The main argument of this paper is that policy integration should be understood as a process that entails various elements that do not necessarily move in a concerted manner but may develop at different paces or even in opposite directions. To study such dynamic integration pathways, the paper proposes a multi-dimensional framework. Drawing on existing literature, the framework distinguishes four dimensions of integration: (1) policy frame, (2), subsystem involvement, (3) policy goals, and (4) policy instruments. For each of these dimensions, we describe different manifestations that are associated with lesser or more advanced degrees of policy integration within a governance system. Apart from offering an innovative theoretical approach that does justice to the dynamic and oftentimes asynchronous nature of integration processes, the framework allows for holding decision-makers accountable for promises they make about enhancing policy integration. Simultaneously, it is argued that the merit of lower degrees of integration should not be underestimated, as these may sometimes be the most feasible or appropriate for the governance of a cross-cutting problem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a processual understanding of policy integration

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the term 'super-wicked' problem has also been developed (c.f. Varone et al 2013;Levin et al 2012;Lazarus 2008), to potentially regain some analytical utility through a narrower focus on additional concerns. The term has particularly been applied to environmental policy or climate change specifically, with Levin et al (2012) explaining how these issues have additional 'wicked' features such as temporal urgency, or solutions required from those causing the problems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

Parkhurst

2016

Policy Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wicked policy problems are often said to be characterized by their 'intractability', whereby appeals to evidence are unable to provide policy resolution. Advocates for 'Evidence Based Policy' (EBP) often lament these situations as representing the misuse of evidence for strategic ends, while critical policy studies authors counter that policy decisions are fundamentally about competing values, with the (blind) embrace of technical evidence depoliticizing political decisions. This paper aims to help resolve these conflicts and, in doing so, consider how to address this particular feature of problem wickedness. Specifically the paper delineates two forms of evidentiary bias that drive intractability, each of which is reflected by contrasting positions in the EBP debates: 'technical bias'-referring to invalid uses of evidence; and 'issue bias'-referring to how pieces of evidence direct policy agendas to particular concerns. Drawing on the fields of policy studies and cognitive psychology, the paper explores the ways in which competing interests and values manifest in these forms of bias, and shape evidence utilization through different mechanisms. The paper presents a conceptual framework reflecting on how the nature of policy problems in terms of their complexity, contestation, and polarization can help identify the potential origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias leading to intractability in some wicked policy debates. The discussion reflects on how a better understanding about such mechanisms could inform future work to mitigate or overcome such intractability.

show abstract

“…The value of these approaches is that governance systems are better equipped to plan for change rather than only what can be predicted [36,37]. In Brazil, the Secretariat of Strategic Affairs for the Presidency conducted a national multi-sectoral scenario study to assess the likely impacts of climate change, and only then identified strategies for adaptation.…”

Section: Externalities and Shared Risks Across Multiple Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The critical role of risk in setting directions for water, food and energy policy and research

Gallagher

Dalton

Bréthaut

et al. 2016

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) challenge markets, regulators and practitioners to achieve multiple objectives on water, food and energy. This calls for responses that are coordinated and scaled appropriately. Learning from waterenergy-food nexus could support much-needed building of links between the separate SDGs. The concept has highlighted how risks manifest when blinkered development and management of water, food and energy reduce resource security across sectors and far-reaching scales. However, three under-studied dimensions of these risks must be better considered in order to identify leverage points for sustainable development: first, externalities and shared risks across multiple scales; second, innovative government mechanisms for shared risks; and third, negotiating the balance between silos, politics and power in addressing shared risks.

show abstract

Functional regulatory spaces

Cited by 78 publications

References 49 publications

Toward a processual understanding of policy integration

Toward a processual understanding of policy integration

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

The critical role of risk in setting directions for water, food and energy policy and research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About