Sabine Weiland

Policy assessment: the state of the art

Policy assessment has spread rapidly around the world in the last few decades providing an opportunity for further innovation and understanding in the way in which assessment is conceived, practised and researched. The extension of assessment from project and programme level to policy level was in part intended to improve its effectiveness by moving the focus of study upstream in the policy-making process. This paper reflects on the state of the art in policy assessment. It illustrates how the diffusion of policy assessment has led not to one standard ‘correct’ way of conducting policy assessment but to a great deal of diversity in how policy assessment is practised as well as researched and even theorized. Although the ‘textbook’ concept and everyday practices of policy assessment are based on a traditional rational linear concept of policy-making, policy assessment has become the latest arena for post-positivist conceptions of policy-making and assessment to resurface. This paper suggests that the future agenda for both research and practices could – indeed should – attempt to straddle these two theoretical approaches.

The use of policy formulation tools in the venue of policy appraisal: patterns and underlying motivations

As described in the introductory chapter, this book is concerned with the ways that actors in particular policy formulation venues gather and apply knowledge derived from using particular policy formulation tools. This chapter examines the venue of policy appraisal, which has received widespread attention from both policy formulation researchers and practitioners in the past two decades (Turnpenny et al. 2009; Adelle et al. 2012). As a formalized venue in which analysis is undertaken when formulating policy, it corresponds to the ‘InternalOfficial’ type as defined in Chapter 1. Indeed, the use of policy appraisal is often required by law: by 2008, all 31 OECD countries had either adopted, or were in the process of adopting, a formal system of policy appraisal (OECD 2009). Policy appraisal systems may in turn harness a wide range of policy formulation tools to carry out the analysis (Carley 1980; De Ridder et al. 2007; Nilsson et al. 2008). All these elements mean that the study of policy appraisal can yield revealing insights into policy formulation as a whole, since it covers, often mandatorily, the key ‘tasks’ of policy formulation noted in Chapter 1, namely: characterization of the current situation; problem conceptualization; identification of policy options; assessment of potential policy options and recommending and/or proposing a specific policy design. This chapter uses policy appraisal as a window into policy formulation activities as a whole.

Regulatory impact assessment: a survey of selected developing and emerging economies

This paper reports on a survey of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) in 16 developing and emerging economies. RIA was playing an increasing role in these countries: eight had introduced RIA in the past 10 years; one had recently redesigned its existing RIA system; another had a long-standing RIA system in place. However, RIA was at an early stage of development in the majority of cases and six countries did not practise RIA.

Anpassung an den Klimawandel aus Governance-Sicht

Der Beitrag behandelt das Thema Anpassung an die Folgen des Klimawandels aus Governance-Perspektive. Eine Bestimmung dessen, was ‚erfolgreiche‘ Anpassung bedeutet, ist angesichts der Komplexitat der Herausforderungen und zu berucksichtigenden Dimensionen schwierig. Denn Klimawandel und seine Folgen wirken sich regional und sektoral sehr unterschiedlich aus. Das muss auch bei den Politiken zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel berucksichtigt werden. Hieraus resultieren eine Reihe von besonderen Herausforderungen der Governance von Klimaanpassung: 1) die vertikale Integration uber mehrere Politikebenen hinweg, 2) die horizontale Integration uber Politikfelder und Sektoren hinweg, 3) die Integration von Wissen in Anpassungspolitik und 4) die Beteiligung von gesellschaftlichen Akteuren, die von Klimawandel betroffen sind, oftmals aber nicht uber die Kapazitaten zur Anpassung verfugen. Entlang dieser Dimensionen wird in dem Beitrag der Stand der Anpassungspolitik in den Landern Europas und der OECD uberblicksartig dargestellt. Die Unterschiede in den nationalen Ansatzen zeigen, dass es nicht eine ‚beste‘ Anpassungspolitik oder -strategie gibt. Die Governance von Klimaanpassung muss sich immer in die gegebenen (nationalen, regionalen und sektoralen) institutionellen Strukturen einpassen und im Rahmen dieser weiterentwickeln.

Ecological modernisation or risk society? The politics of environmental ideas

Abstract In contemporary environmental research two sociological theories are dominant: ecological modernisation and risk society. While being different in many respects, both approaches claim to capture current developments in environmental politics. Being possibly somewhat too ambitious, however, they might not be able to grasp more finegrained political changes, particularly differences occurring between countries and/or policy fields. I therefore suggest an analytical framework that is more open to the dynamic of eco‐social development. The interpretation of ecological modernisation and risk society as political ideas opens up a research perspective that makes possible to analyse the political processes in which these ideas gain influence. This conception allows accounting for variations in environmental policy developments.

Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Europa. Zur Notwendigkeit eines ökologischen Sozialmodells

Obgleich das Konzept der „Nachhaltigen Entwicklung“ keinesfalls neu ist, erlebt es seit Ende der 1980er Jahre einen beachtlichen Aufschwung. Es ist dem Report „Our Common Future“ der World Commission an Environment and Development (WCED 1987; dt.: Hauff 1987) — besser bekannt als Brundtland-Report — zu verdanken, diesen Begriff popularisiert und politisiert zu haben. Nachhaltige Entwicklung wird darin definiert als „Entwicklung, die die Bedurfnisse der heutigen Generationen befriedigt, ohne zu riskieren, das die zukunftigen Generationen ihre eigenen Bedurfnisse nicht befriedigen konnen“ (Hauff 1987: 46). Indem dieses Leitbild den Rahmen fir eine Integration von Umweltpolitik und Entwicklung bereitstellt, brach es mit der bis dahin vorherrschenden, insbesondere durch die Studie des Club of Rome „The Limits to Growth“ (Meadows u. a. 1972) inspirierten Ansicht, das Umweltschutz nur auf Kosten von wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung moglich sei. Nicht ob Umweltschutz und Entwicklung vereinbare Ziele darstellen, sondern wie nachhaltige Formen von Entwicklung erreicht werden konnen, stand in der Folge des Brundtland-Reports im Mittelpunkt der Debatte.