Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between

McConnell, Allan

doi:10.1017/s0143814x10000152

Cited by 413 publications

(343 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

296

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We use it in the most generic sense: a policy is a decision system for the public organized through some form of political representation (Stone, 1997). Policy in this article particularly focuses on process aspects -including politics and contestation at different stages of decision making, and thus we tend to prefer the term 'policy processes ' (McConnell, 2010;Orr, 2006). 'Politics' we use in the widest social science sense to refer to the contestations between groups of people for power and influence, in this case related to how climate change policies are formulated.…”

Section: Contextualizing the Nepal Case In The Wider Climate Policy Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal

Ojha¹,

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As developing countries around the world formulate policies to address climate change, concerns remain as to whether the voices of those most exposed to climate risk are represented in those policies. Developing countries face significant challenges for contextualizing global-scale scientific research into national political dynamics and downscaling global frameworks to subnational levels, where the most affected are presumed to live. This article critiques the ways in which the politics of representation and climate science are framed and pursued in the process of climate policy development, and contributes to an understanding of the relative effectiveness of globally framed, generic policy mechanisms in vulnerable and politically volatile contexts. Based on this analysis, it also outlines opportunities for the possibility of improving climate policy processes to contest technocratic framing and generic international adaptation solutions. Policy relevanceNepal's position as one of the countries most at risk from climate change in the Himalayas has spurred significant international support to craft climate policy responses over the past few years. Focusing on the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and the Climate Change Policy, this article examines the extent to which internationally and scientifically framed climate policy in Nepal recognizes the unfolding political mobilizations around the demand for a representative state and equitable adaptation to climate risks. This is particularly important in Nepal, where political unrest in the post-conflict transition after the end of the civil war in 2006 has focused around struggles over representation for those historically on the political margins. Arguing that vulnerability to climate risk is produced in conjunction with social and political conditions, and that not everyone in the same locality is equally vulnerable, we demonstrate the multi-faceted nature of the politics of representation for climate policy making in Nepal. However, so far, this policy making has primarily been shaped through a technocratic framing that avoids political contestations and downplays the demand for inclusive and deliberative processes. Based on this analysis, we identify the need for a flexible, contextually grounded, and multi-scalar approach to political representation while also emphasizing the need for downscaling climate science that can inform policy development and implementation to achieve fair and effective adaptation to climate change.

show abstract

Section: Contextualizing the Nepal Case In The Wider Climate Policy Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal

Ojha¹,

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, we acknowledge that it is difficult to empirically evaluate the policy success of an actor or the effectiveness of achieving policy outputs (McConnell 2010). We therefore seek to investigate an antecedent condition for factual political influence and success: the reputation of an actor as being influential.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Ingold

Leifeld

2014

JOPART

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central assumption in the literature on collaborative networks and policy networks is that political outcomes are affected by a variety of state and nonstate actors. Some of these actors are more powerful than others and can therefore have a considerable effect on decision making. In this article, we seek to provide a structural and institutional explanation for these power differentials in policy networks and support the explanation with empirical evidence. We use a dyadic measure of influence reputation as a proxy for power, and posit that influence reputation over the political outcome is related to vertical integration into the political system by means of formal decisionmaking authority, and to horizontal integration by means of being well embedded into the policy network. Hence, we argue that actors are perceived as influential because of two complementary factors: (a) their institutional roles and (b) their structural positions in the policy network. Based on temporal and cross-sectional exponential random graph models, we compare five cases about climate, telecommunications, flood prevention, and toxic chemicals politics in Switzerland and Germany. The five networks cover national and local networks at different stages of the policy cycle. The results confirm that institutional and structural drivers seem to have a crucial impact on how an actor is perceived in decision making and implementation and, therefore, their ability to significantly shape outputs and service delivery.

show abstract

“…Symbolic innovations are discussed in the literature as rather straightforward, resulting from a mismatch of different levels of policy (Rogers 2003, Makse and Volden 2011, van der Heiden and Strebel 2012. Symbolic innovations have innovative goals and might even apply new instruments, but they lack innovation and intensity at the level of settings and calibrations (McConnell 2010, Krause 2011, Bauer et al 2012.…”

Section: Policy Innovation and Policy Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…If layered on top of a process of cumulative changes, even insignificant policy innovation might trigger radical changes in the political trajectory towards new policy instruments with new interests and coalitions (Black et al 2005, Pelling and Dill 2010, Shipan and Volden 2012. Second, governmental action or 'cheap talk' might be perceived as innovative, even if actual instruments remain traditional and symbolic (McConnell 2010, Krause 2011, Bauer et al 2012. Without evaluating policy innovations in the context of the broader policy portfolio, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The innovativeness of national policy portfolios – climate policy change in Austria, Germany, and the UK

Schaffrin

Sewerin

Seubert

2014

Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine whether innovations in policy concerning climate-change mitigation are symbolic or truly radical in the sense of 'tipping' existing policy portfolios towards a new instrumental logic, we study policy innovations in the context of pre-existing policy portfolios and analyse the associated dynamics over time. Our analysis is facilitated by a new measurement of policy output, the Index of Climate Policy Activity. This new approach sheds light on the relative importance of policy innovations in complex policy portfolios, and serves as a blueprint for further analyses of the politics of policy innovation. Empirically, we analyse policy innovations within the policy portfolios of energy production in Austria, Germany, and the UK between 1998 and 2010. We find high stability in the instrumental logic but substantial change in policy settings and calibrations.

show abstract

Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between

Cited by 413 publications

References 39 publications

Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal

Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

The innovativeness of national policy portfolios – climate policy change in Austria, Germany, and the UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About