Search

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The internationalization of science has prompted major science funding agencies to seek to further international cooperation in basic research through the use of outposts based outside of the agency's home country. While these offices are all international in scope, the strategies and utilization of these offices vary. This paper begins by outlining the motivations and theoretical framework for international offices, drawing specifically from a proximity theory of relationships. Subsequently the paper presents a typology of activities that fall under the rubric of international engagement in science. We will then critically examine the international offices of four leading basic research funding agencies and attempt to characterize and describe the distinct models that these agencies employ. Building from the models of organization, the paper closes with a discussion of the impacts of these overseas offices as well as other policy implications from the use of different engagement strategies in fostering international collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The governments of Britain, France, and the United States are seeking to promote renewed investment in nuclear power through metagovernance. Metagovernance describes the way governments can leverage state power and resources to shape the behavior of networked actors to advance policy goals. To metagovern, governments use a variety of policy tools but the factors shaping the design of these policy tools remains unclear. Grid-group cultural theory is used to show that the design of the policy tools used in metagovernance reflects both an underlying cultural bias within government and prevailing institutional circumstances. The paper demonstrates the utility of cultural theory in the study of metagovernance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Developing and developed nations face demographic challenges in the coming decades. Aging populations are expected to strain health resources and social safety nets. Smart home technology (SHT) is touted as a means for simultaneously improving quality of life and independence, while also reducing the long‐term costs of caring for an aging population. SHT also presents myriad governance and policy challenges, especially the protection and use of vast amounts of patient data. Alas, the governance and policy aspects of SHT research have been largely peripheral. The aims of this review are to cogently present the governance benefits and challenges of SHT and prompt greater engagement by policy scholars in myriad unanswered research questions. Specifically, it uses the collaborative governance framework to identify opportunities for, and barriers to, forward‐thinking public and private collaboration. Research engagement by policy researchers is vital for effective governing of this burgeoning sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To help explain the role scientists play in policy change, concepts such as coproduction, boundary-work, and pollution and purity claims as they are used in science studies should be incorporated into policy theory. Moreover improved policy theory should specify the kinds of boundary-work that can occur and the kinds of values and beliefs that drive boundary-work, explaining how boundary-work leads to policy change. The cultural theory (CT) developed by Mary Douglas, Michael Thompson, Aaron Wildavsky, and others can help specify conditions for coproduction and change in science, institutions, and policy when recast as a theory involving three critical institutional boundaries. This theory-development article uses this recast version of CT to help explain the most recent dramatic shift in federal land and wildlife management policy in the Pacific Northwest. The article illustrates how cultural combatants use boundary-work including pollution and purity claims to align themselves and the domain of authoritative science with scientists whose constructs of nature and policy prescriptions are functional for their preferred institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concepts of 'boundary organization' and 'boundary work,' borrowed from science and technology studies (STS), are now commonly used in International Relations to analyze organizations providing a science-policy interface. This article critically examines these concepts, with close attention to specific insights from the STS literature, for their added value in understanding the interactions between knowledge production processes on the one hand and policy making at the global level on the other. It lays the basis for two critiques: (1) an institutionalist critique of the use of these metaphors highlighting the mismatch between the interplay of relevant actors-scientists, policy makers, and stakeholders-via the social spaces they occupy and international organizations; (2) on weak assumptions on coproduction. The authors argue that the true challenge for science-policy interfaces is to generate politically 'usable knowledge' and conditions for social learning, thus recognizing that politicization of science is more likely than the scientification of politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technological innovations are by no means Pareto-improving. I build on the argument that incumbent innovators can use political means to block rival innovations by emphasizing that the competitiveness of political system and some political institutions may diminish their ability to do so. I specify an institutional mechanism of agenda power, which provides newcomers with an improved ability to enter the game. The number of agenda power holders varies significantly among political systems, electoral systems, and administrative structures. With a sample of about 100 countries and across 20 years I show that politically competitive regimes, majoritarian electoral rules, and federal structures supply more holders of agenda power in comparison to their counterparts and, other things being equal, produce more innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the growing importance of public engagement in science policy making and declining levels of public trust in food production, the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA) has attempted to embed 'good governance' approaches to strengthen scientific independence and open up risk decision making, which include the use of public consultations. However, 'opening up' of risk assessment policies reveals some tensions; namely, balancing the goals of scientific excellence and transparency, protecting science from interests, addressing value judgments, and limited opportunities to debate ethical and social issues. EFSA's development of risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals is used as a case study to analyze these tensions. This analysis suggests that in order to fulfill good governance commitments and maintain trust in risk governance, closer cooperation between EFSA and the European Commission is required to provide 'space' for debating the broader risk management issues. This publically accessible space may be needed alongside rather than instead of EFSA's consultation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globalization has generated increasing interest in technology-intensive industries as a way to sustain national economic competitiveness. High-technology growth is often conceptualized as a 'high road' to prosperity, more amenable to private-public, industry-labor, and interfirm cooperation than tax, regulatory, or cost competitive strategies. While specialization in technology-intensive industries does deliver several benefits, this article uses Finland's successful transformation into a high-technology economy to highlight the significant economic and political risks associated with this strategy. Economically, movement into electronics exposed Finland to cost competition and disruptive technological innovations. Politically, high-technology competition weakened the solidaristic ties that characterized postwar capitalism and the coordinating capacities that underpinned economic growth. In short, high-technology growth exacerbated the problems it was supposed to solve. The article concludes by generalizing the argument to several non-Nordic states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]