Beryl A. Radin

Knowledge Actors and Transnational Governance: The Private-Public Policy Nexus in the Global Agora

Prefecture, 2013). While the central government had initially aimed to return all evacuees to their hometowns, it has been argued that this may not be feasible (Yomiuri Newspaper, November 5, 2013). In such a difficult and complex situation, local municipalities, communities, residents’ groups, and nonprofit organizations are making various attempts to figure out the most effective interventions to enable evacuees to resume their “normal daily routines”. Is social capital the key? We shall see.

Science and Policy Analysis in the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

This article focuses on one expression of the relationship between science and policy analysis: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget. It has used a classic policy analysis technique—cost–benefit analysis—as the way that the White House will review regulations. This discussion highlights the utilization of the cost–benefit method in the OIRA decision-making process, the roles of various actors in the system, and the response to that use by various policy actors. It illustrates the difficulty of utilizing rational analytical methods in an environment of political conflict.

Jeni Vaitsman, Jose Mendes Ribeiro, and Lenaura Lobato, Policy Analysis in Brazil

Despite recent attempts to develop the profession of policy analysis in a global context, it has largely been defined in the academic corridors in the US. The literatures that have been attached to the American expression of this field have emphasized the methodologies created in the post-World War II environment and the analytic processes that were described by Arnold Meltsner (1976), the earliest student of the policy analysis field. The fascination with the analytic processes – while useful – did not capture the tradition of advising decision makers that was found in other forms in other settings. Few of the Americans associated with the development of the field highlighted the role of analysts as advisors, even though many top civil servants were defined as individuals who provide advice to high-level decision makers. Goldhamer (1978) reminded us that Machiavelli and other earlier officials in many societies reflected on their experience as counselors to rulers and other decision makers. While the classic parliamentary approach has not emphasized formal analysis tied to research as the basis for advice, few have picked up the differences between the US shared power system and the Westminster system in this regard. The globalization of the field called policy analysis has uncovered the limitations of the US approach to the broad dimensions of an advising role. The creation of this journal (the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, which is now almost 20 years old) has been joined by an effort by the Policy Press in the UK to create an International Library of Policy Analysis. At this writing ten volumes have been published that examine the theory and practice of policy analysis systems at different levels of government and by non-government actors in individual countries. These volumes focus on Belgium, Mexico, the Czech Republic, Israel, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, and Brazil (and additional volumes will emerge in the future). Each of the volumes is edited by individuals from the relevant country and generally follow the same structure. Individual chapters are written by individuals within the country to provide an overview of developments in that country, the role of central, regional, and local governments (including the executive branch, legislative bodies, and specific agencies), the role of political parties, the role of interest and advocacy groups outside of government, and the academic sector. This essay focuses on two volumes in the series – the book on Policy Analysis in Israel and the book on Policy Analysis in Brazil. This is a modest effort to compare two volumes in the series to illustrate both similarities and differences in the way that this field has developed. It is obvious that these two volumes indicate that people who call themselves policy analysts use similar language and terms but the contexts which provide the basis for these efforts have created huge differences in meanings for these efforts.

Policy Analysis and Advising Decisionmakers: Don’t Forget the Decisionmaker/Client

Abstract The field of policy analysis rarely emphasizes the role and importance of the relationship between the policy analyst and those whom they are advising. It is a topic that almost never shows up in the policy journals or in panels at policy conferences. The focus of the field has been on the assumptions, tools, roles and reality of the analyst and little acknowledgement that the analyst is an advisor to the decisionmaker – not actually making the decisions. The current experience involving policy advising has moved the field from one that had been found largely in the US to include experience within other countries focusing on the advising function. As such it illustrates similarities and differences that emerge from diverse political, cultural and organizational settings. This range of policy settings indicates both positive and negative experiences with the advising function. The paper uses the comparative approach to contrast the changes over time and to begin to compare the experiences of parliamentary systems with the US shared powers system.

Compared to What? The Multiple Meanings of Comparative Policy Analysis

Abstract What is comparative public policy? How can it contribute to better public policy? These questions seem fundamental to the mission of the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. Some scholars have addressed the first question, which usually places comparative policy analysis in an institutional context, emphasizing comparisons across countries. However, fewer scholars have addressed the second, which lies at the heart of the comparative enterprise. As a result, the boundaries of this analytic effort are unclear and attempts to evaluate work that is defined as “comparative” are sometimes controversial. In this essay, we first sketch the history of the development of policy analysis in the United States. This historical review provides a sense of how comparative analysis fits into the development of the field, how the field has ignored some opportunities to think about comparative analysis, and offers some insight into how comparative policy analysis can contribute to better public policy. It then turns to possible avenues for comparison to identify the opportunities and limitations of the comparative approach.

Micro and macro approaches to social innovation: mapping the approaches of significant funders and advocates - comparative experience in East Asia, Europe and the United States

Despite the global interest in social innovation, limited attention has been given to the diverse ways in which this effort has been approached. Much of the literature highlights the bottom-up approach and does not deal with the complexity of the broader institutional settings that play a role in the process. While there has been rhetorical attention to issues related to “getting to scale”, this goal is often confronted by diverse structural and political institutions and actors. This diversity limits the ability of advocates to devise approaches that straddle sectoral and national divides. In response, this article focuses on the approaches of a number of different organisations that have emphasised social innovation in their work and have provided resources for the efforts now underway. It analyses and compares the work undertaken in Western countries, including that of the US Social Innovation Fund, the USAID Forward programme, the Kennedy School Innovations in American Government Awards, and the European Commission, with that undertaken in East Asia, including the more socially embedded approach to incubating social innovation in Hong Kong and South Korea. The analysis draws on extant studies and reports issued by the relevant organisations, and provides a skeleton framework for future attempts to analyse the varied social innovation efforts.

Carolyn Ban, Management and Culture in an Enlarged European Commission: From Diversity to Unity?

coincided with the articulation and the diffusion of a powerful discourse Vogel calls “regulatory skepticism.” This discourse discards public anxieties as irrational while stressing the need for a scientific approach to risk analysis at odds with the precautionary principle dominant in Europe. This is an excellent and convincing book that suffers from only a few minor flaws. First, the analysis of the interaction among the three main explanatory factors could have been more systematic, as these factors are closely related. Second, and more important, Vogel neglects to comprehensively discuss the potential impact of the EU enlargement and, more specifically, the recent inclusion of pro-market members from Eastern Europe on regulatory policies within the EU. Finally, the precautionary principle is only (and loosely) defined towards the end of the book, which may confuse some readers. Despite these limitations, The Politics of Precaution is a most useful book that maps crucial policy and regulatory developments in two regions of the world over five decades. Clearly, students of comparative public policy should read and engage with this wide-ranging book.