scholarly journals When Populist Leaders Govern: Conceptualising Populism in Policy Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 71-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Bartha ◽  
Zsolt Boda ◽  
Dorottya Szikra
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Ideal Type ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Willingness To Adopt ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Policy Content ◽  
Distinguishing Features

The rise of populist governance throughout the world offers a novel opportunity to study the way in which populist leaders and parties rule. This article conceptualises populist policy making by theoretically addressing the substantive and discursive components of populist policies and the decision-making processes of populist governments. It first reconstructs the implicit ideal type of policy making in liberal democracies based on the mainstream governance and policy making scholarship. Then, taking stock of the recent populism literature, the article elaborates an ideal type of populist policy making along the dimensions of content, procedures and discourses. As an empirical illustration we apply a qualitative congruence analysis to assess the conformity of a genuine case of populist governance, social policy in post-2010 Hungary with the populist policy making ideal type. Concerning the policy content, the article argues that policy heterodoxy, strong willingness to adopt paradigmatic reforms and an excessive responsiveness to majoritarian preferences are distinguishing features of any type of populist policies. Regarding the procedural features populist leaders tend to downplay the role of technocratic expertise, sideline veto-players and implement fast and unpredictable policy changes. Discursively, populist leaders tend to extensively use crisis frames and discursive governance instruments in a Manichean language and a saliently emotional manner that reinforces polarisation in policy positions. Finally, the article suggests that policy making patterns in Hungarian social policy between 2010 and 2018 have been largely congruent with the ideal type of populist policy making.

Feminist Perspectives on Foreign Policy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie D'Aoust
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Gender Mainstreaming ◽  
Foreign Policies ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Role Of Women ◽  
The Impact

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) deals with the decision-making processes involved in foreign policy-making. As a field of study, FPA overlaps international relations (IR) theory and comparative politics. Studies that take into account either sex, women, or gender contribute to the development of knowledge on and about women in IR, which is in itself one of the goals of feminist scholarship. There are two main spheres of feminist inquiries when it comes to foreign policy: the role of women as sexed power holders involved in decision-making processes and power-sharing in the realm of foreign policy-making, and the role of gendered norms in the conduct and adoption of foreign policies. Many observers insist that feminism and foreign policy are linked only by a marriage of convenience, designed to either acknowledge the political accomplishments of women in the sphere of foreign policy such as Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi, or bring attention to so-called “women’s issues,” such as reproduction rights and population control. Scholarship on women and/or gender in relation to foreign policy covers a wide range of themes, such as the role of women as political actors in decision-making processes and organizational structures; women’s human rights and gender mainstreaming; the impact of various foreign policies on women’s lives; and the concept of human security and the idea of women’s rights as a valid foreign policy objective. Three paradigms that have been explored as part of the study of women in comparative politics and IR are behavioralism, functionalism, and rational choice theory.

scholarly journals ‘We need to talk’: Trump’s electoral rhetoric and the role of transatlantic dialogues

Politics ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 026339572093604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuelle Blanc
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Presidential Rhetoric ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Psychological Approach ◽  
Ontological Security ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Electoral Rhetoric ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

Trump’s stinging electoral rhetoric regarding Europe has profoundly challenged the foundations of the transatlantic relations. Exploring the link between electoral rhetoric and US foreign policy, this article focusses on a key feature of transatlantic policy-making, that is, the multi-levelled architecture of European Union (EU)–US dialogues, involving diplomats, legislators, and civil society. While research shows that dialogues help promote cooperation, their relevance and specific functions in times of elections have not been explored so far. To what extent do dialogical interactions change at the approach of elections and right afterwards? Why do dialogues keep going, in spite of fierce presidential rhetoric suggesting otherwise? To fill this gap, this article explores the EU–US dialogues following Trump’s election to determine the extent to which these dialogues endorse new functions that have so far been overlooked. Adopting a socio-psychological approach, it shows that one of the functions that dialogue fulfils in times of elections is the reassurance that the relationship identity of the actors will be respected to meet their ontological security needs. Drawing on interviews and official documents, this article sheds a new light on the importance of dialogical engagement at these critical points in the life of liberal democracies.

Public Opinion and the Demand for Social Welfare in Britain

1981 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Whiteley
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Formation ◽  
Welfare Spending ◽  
The Social ◽  
Policy Making Process

ABSTRACTThis article discusses the role of public opinion in the social policy making process. It argues that existing accounts of social policy formation are inadequate in their treatment of public opinion, and inconsistent in their estimation of its importance. It then goes on to examine detailed examples of the role of public opinion in policy making; and finally tests two hypotheses concerning the sources of the demand for social welfare spending on the part of the British electorate.

Assessing the SDGs from the point of view of global social governance

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Deacon
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Structural Adjustment ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
The Sustainable Development ◽  
Social Governance ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
Governance Institutions

This article assesses the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in terms of their contribution to improved global social governance. As a global policy-making process they are commended. As a set of global social policy aspirations the SDGs are the first global social policy. In terms of the contributions the SDG document makes to improving the architecture of global social governance it is found to fail. It fails in the field of global redistribution, global taxation, global regulation and in the field of the realisation of global social rights. The SDGs document embodies a reversal in policy-making away from a concern to construct improved global governance institutions back to an era of strengthening national sovereignty. The anti-structural adjustment sentiments of the 1980s cast their shadow over attempts to construct a socially responsible globalisation in the 2010s. The SDGs do make suggestions regarding the role of regionalism in meeting the goals and targets and indeed the article suggests reforms in regional social governance might be a more productive route to follow.

scholarly journals The Implementation of the REACH Authorisation Procedure on Chemical Substances of Concern: What Kind of Legitimacy?

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 128-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Klika
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Chemical Substances ◽  
High Concern ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Reach Regulation ◽  
Very High

With the increasing “agencification” of policy making in the European Union (EU), normative questions regarding the legitimacy of EU agencies have become ever more important. This article analyses the role of expertise and legitimacy with regard to the European Chemicals Agency ECHA. Based on the REACH regulation, so-called Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) are subject to authorisation. The authorisation procedure aims to ensure the good functioning of the internal market, while assuring that risks of SVHCs are properly controlled. Since ECHA has become operational in 2008, recurring decisions on SVHCs have been made. The question posed in this article is: to what extent can decision making in the REACH authorisation procedure be assessed as legitimate? By drawing on the notion of throughput legitimacy, this article argues that decision making processes in the authorisation procedure are characterized by insufficient legitimacy.

The Magic of Measurement: Mental Testing and English Education 1900–40

1977 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 135-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
Social Policy ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Precise Measurement ◽  
English Education ◽  
Social Thought ◽  
New Thought ◽  
Mental Testing

It has been a characteristic of studies of social policy-making in England to lay considerable stress on the importance of quantification, of precise measurement, in the evolution of any given policy. It has been suggested that the power of the evidence, once properly assembled and measured, could on occasion be sufficient to dissolve previous certainties and act as a catalyst of new thought. It is perhaps not entirely fanciful to see links between this aspect of the historiography of social policy and the preoccupation of English social thought with empiricism, a preoccupation which led sometimes to the presentation of empiricism as an alternative to social theory. All of this enhances the importance of attempts to assess the role of measurement in any given field of policy and to confront directly the questions of its autonomy and the power of its advocates.

scholarly journals Workshop: Bringing economics, health and migration together: a mutual learning experiment

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Migrant Health ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Translation Strategies ◽  
Mutual Learning ◽  
Knowledge Translation Strategies

Abstract Acknowledging the role of economic arguments in political discourses and decision-making, researchers have begun to pay more attention to the fiscal implications of different health policy options for migrants. As yet, empirical evidence on economic effects of policy responses to migration and the societal costs or cost-effectiveness of competing strategies to address migrants’ health needs is scarce. Methodological challenges such as limited availability and accessibility of decent data often impede the generation of robust evidence. Further, little is known as to how evidence can effectively be moved into policy; e.g., the actual clout of economic arguments in migration policies debates, as opposed to other evidence- or value-based arguments, hitherto remains unclear. In other social policy domains such as educational and labour market integration, economic evaluations have become routine components of policy assessments. And under the title of, e.g., knowledge translation, strategies for the introduction of research evidence into political decision-making processes have been developed. The combination of similar goals and challenges suggests that there are opportunities to build bridges across sectors and disciplines - e.g., public health, social epidemiology, economics, social policy, data science - as well as across research-practice-divides, for the purposes of mutual learning and the joint improvement of research outcomes. The goal of this workshop is to start such learning processes by bringing together researchers and professionals from different fields, by sharing existing knowledge, and by jointly exploring the following questions: What are the thematic intersections, tensions and synergies between the different disciplines? What are common goals and questions? Which kinds of different knowledge complement each other towards those goals?Where are options for mutual learning, methodological transfer and/or synthesis? How can they help to overcome current challenges in estimating the costs of divergent migrant health policies?What can be learnt from existing knowledge translation strategies as regards the role of research for migrant health policy making?What challenges and open questions remain? The workshop will start with a brief introduction of key concepts and objectives. The first presentation will use three case studies to reflect on the potential of economic evaluation for improving health screening and assessment policies for asylum seekers in Germany. The second presentation will provide input from seminal research on public policy in migration contexts. A third presentation will summarize previous activities and insights of the work group “Economic arguments in migrant health policy making”. The following discussion will examine the above noted questions by tapping into the presenters’ expertise and the audience’s experience. The workshop will be closed with a summary of lessons learnt and directions for future research. Key messages Economic arguments play a central role in policy-making; but economic analyses of different migrant health policy options are hampered by various methodological challenges and tensions. Seminal research in other social policy domains offers potential for mutual learning, toward the end of generating valid economic evidence on the cost-benefits of migrants’ greater in-/exclusion.

scholarly journals Ethics, economics and migration: intersections, synergies and tensions

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
U Trummer ◽  
N Gottlieb
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Healthcare Provision ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Economic Analyses ◽  
Political Decisions

Abstract The presentation will provide food for thought on the relationships between value-based discussions and economic evaluations of healthcare provision for marginalized migrant groups along two different lines of thought. First, while economic analyses are often interpreted as objective and neutral pieces of evidence, it can be argued that every economic model and analysis has its starting point in specific ethical values that are set as basic assumptions. This, in turn, has inevitable impacts on possible results and conclusions. The presentation will use examples to illustrate the value-based foundations of economic analyses in migrant healthcare; and it will propose options for the more explicit reflection of value-based assumptions in economic evaluations. Secondly, the presentation will reflect on existing research on the rationales shaping political decision-making processes in the field of migrant healthcare. In specific, it will examine the concepts of “health-related deservingness” and of “political decisions”, which both postulate that eventually values tip the scales in political decisions on migrant healthcare; and it will discuss the meaning of these concepts for the role of economic evidence in policy-making processes. In doing so, the presentation will relate back to the workshop’s overarching question on how to build synergies and bridges between migration and health research, economic analysis, and policy making to overcome inherent tensions.

Introduction to Democratic e-Governance

2011 ◽  
pp. 22-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Participatory Democracy ◽  
Democratic Governance ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Modes Of Governance ◽  
Changing Role

The concept of governance has its roots in the changing role of the state and in a managerialist view of the operations of public administrations. These two discourses have been challenged by another approach, which could be called democratic governance. It emphasizes the interactions between citizens, political representatives and administrative machinery providing a special view of citizens’ opportunities to influence and participate in policy-making and related processes. This perspective opens up a view to the practices in which institutions, organizations and citizens steer and guide society and communities. It provides citizen-centered view of governance which is quite different from managerialist and institutionalist perspectives. Such approaches as communitarianism, teledemocracy, participatory democracy and direct democracy have been presented as alternative modes of governance. In regard to technology, democratic e-governance is based on the idea that new ICTs can be used to facilitate interaction, communication and decision-making processes, thus having a great potential to strengthen the democratic aspects of governance.

scholarly journals Policy Conflict and its Settlement in Korea: The Case of Regulatory Reform

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (0) ◽  
pp. 33-57
Author(s):  
Song Ho Lee
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Regulatory Reform ◽  
Policy Coordination ◽  
Power Bases ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Policy Conflict ◽  
Policy Actors ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Policy Content ◽  
Two Stages

Policy making can be defined as the specification of policy content, a set of policy goals and instruments. This specification can be made through two stages: position taking and coordination. Usually due to their interests and values, major policy actors in the policy making process have not only concern for the content of the policy to be made but also some ideas and preference for it. They internally transform these ideas and preferences into their policy positions, and then push their positions externally against other incompatible positions. When policy actors push different policy positions from somewhat independent power bases, policy conflict ensues. Coordination among them is needed. The outcome of policy coordination can not always be the same as each actor intends. Original policy content can be maintained, or partially deleted from or added to, or changed into completely new one, or evaporated into the air. More than two policy positions can be coordinated in integrative or distributive fashion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document