The study of public policy and the methods of policy analysis are among the most rapidly developing areas in the social sciences. Policy analysis has emerged to provide a better understanding of the policymaking process and to supply decision makers with reliable policy-relevant knowledge about pressing economic and social problems. Presenting a broad, comprehensive perspective, the Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods covers the historical development of policy analysis, its role in the policy process, and empirical methods. The handbook considers the theory generated by these methods and the normative and ethical issues surrounding their practice.Written by leading experts in the field, this book-Deals with the basic origins and evolution of public policy
Examines the stages of the policy-making process
Identifies political advocacy and expertise in the policy process
Focuses on rationality in policy decision-making and the role of policy networks and learning
Details argumentation, rhetoric, and narratives
Explores the comparative, cultural, and ethical aspects of public policy
Explains primary quantitative-oriented analytical methods employed in policy research
Addresses the qualitative sides of policy analysis
Discusses tools used to refine policy choices
Traces the development of policy analysis in selected national contextsThe Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods describes the theoretical debates that have recently defined the field, including the work of postpositivist, interpretivist, and social constructionist scholars. This book also explores the interplay between empirical and normative analysis, a crucial issue running through contemporary debates.
This academic article aims to analyze the limitations of public policy models, which were constructed in a variety of ways, and the proposal for using the postmodern theory in policy analysis. Based on the analysis of public policy models, a variety of public policy models is caused by the addition of the original idea, an argument, or a refutation of the original model. Among a variety of public policy models, there is the limitation that one model may not be able to be completely used for policy formulation or analysis, especially when considering in the context of policymaking in Thailand that must be formulated in accordance with the national strategy and clear policy making guidelines. As a result, policy models are unable to analyze policies comprehensively or accurately. Therefore, public policy analysis requires the postmodern theory, emphasizing the integration of theoretical concepts that must not get too attached to the models. Also, attention must be paid to the phenomenon and the context of public administration in that area.
wayne parsons public policy pdf download
Download File: https://disasordzu.blogspot.com/?gi=2vF22h
How can science have an impact on policymaking? This question has been with us since the institutionalised public funding of research began and has sparked a wide-ranging discussion with a variety of perspectives and approaches to conceptualise and measure the impact of science (Caplan 1979; Weiss 1979; Borgenschneider and Corbett 2010; Bozeman and Sarewitz 2011; Matt et al. 2017). We contribute to this debate by developing a concept that focuses on conditions on the side of scientific knowledge users. This was motivated by the four observations described below regarding the impact of scienceFootnote 1 on policymaking.
Research utilisation is one strand that has explicitly considered the organisational dimension. These studies, predominantly of policy and healthcare, use specialised survey tools to examine research use practices in public settings. They have identified three groups of factors that influence research use by public officials: organisational factors, individual preferences, and barriers. Organisational factors, such as the availability of knowledge brokers, sufficient resources, and a favourable organisational culture, are positively associated with research use (Lomas 2007; Crona and Parker 2011; Belkhodja 2014). Individual traits, such as background and social capital, are equally important; for example, public officials with advanced degrees or work experience in academia are more likely to use research (Jennings and Hall 2012; Ouimet et al. 2010). Public officials vary in their openness to research from different sources and use different types of research in different ways, e.g. instrumentally, symbolically, and conceptually (Amara et al. 2004; Jbilou et al. 2007). Finally, certain barriers obstruct research use: ideological differences, differences in risk perception, lack of contact to and different time frames for knowledge demand and supply (Almeida and Bascolo 2006).
Communicative discourse connects the political sphere and the general public. It serves to legitimise political decisions or trigger policy change through public pressure. Important intervening factors here are the formal institutional context, the polity, and the political culture. The two discourse types interact in many ways. Coordinative discourse, fed also by scientific arguments, links to the public narrative and vice versa. The power of the epistemic community within coordinative discourse may add legitimacy when engaging with the general public (Edler 2003). Conversely, communicative discourse may exert normative power, against which cognitive beliefs in coordinative discourse cannot persist (Schmidt 2002).
Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.
Given the disproportionate impact that the pandemic has had on vulnerable groups to date87,88,89, the panel voiced concern that policy decisions must aim to find ways of lowering risk within these groups after resumption of the aforementioned activities (STMT6.1). As those vulnerable to COVID-19 in many countries can no longer rely on other individuals practising basic prevention measures (such as the use of face masks and isolating after testing positive), the structural changes recommended in this study (for example, indoor ventilation and filtration) assume heightened importance. Furthermore, COVID-19 continues to prompt global discussion and vigorous debate, particularly about tensions among medical ethics, civil liberties and pandemic control measures80. This study is no exception, with statements STMT1.6 (blaming unvaccinated individuals) and STMT3.2 (individual decisions regarding vaccination) receiving the highest levels of disagreement, underscoring the need for equitable structural interventions. In countries with widespread availability of vaccines, it is important for health authorities to distinguish between those who have clearly refused and are unlikely ever to seek vaccination and those who remain hesitant and continue to delay vaccination90. In the latter case, specific factors prolonging the delay can be addressed by targeted interventions. Finally, continued uncertainty about the widespread consequences of long COVID and its implications for public health policy (REC2.9) is an ongoing concern91,92.
We used an iterative sampling approach to generate a large panel for this Delphi study (Fig. 1). The four co-chairs (J.V.L., A.B., A.K. and A.E.-M.) identified a core group of 40 academic, health, NGO, government and policy experts from 25 countries and territories. Selection by the co-chairs was primarily based on publication record and engagement on COVID-19 issues as well as online biographies. Twenty-nine of these experts were well known to the chairs while seven were suggested through snowball sampling to result in geographical and gender equity among the core group of 40. Furthermore, a concerted effort was made towards multidisciplinary representation in the core group, including medical sciences (such as infectious diseases, public health and vaccinology), engineering, and social sciences (such as policy, law and ethics). The core group proposed additional experts to create a global panel of approximately 400 experts. The lead chair (J.V.L.) and methodologist (D.R.) led this core group through implementation of the project. Snowball sampling was then used as core group members identified individuals with expertise in COVID-19 from their professional networks to generate an initial list of potential Delphi panel members with the goal of broad representation. In proposing experts, co-chairs focused on identifying at least one representative from at least 100 countries. One co-chair (J.V.L.) took responsibility for reviewing the suggestions, with support from a research assistant who shared recent publications and a professional biography for every proposed co-author. Many initial suggestions were of leading experts with whom the co-chairs had previously collaborated.
2ff7e9595c
Comments