Untitled [PDF]

ySUMMARY yINTRODUCTION 4 yCOMMITTEES 19 yPLENARY SESSIONS 33 yPANELS SCHEDULE 43 yPANELS DETAILS 73 yLIST OF PARTICIPANTS 373 yPRACTICAL INFORMATION 415

Milan, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

www.icpublicpolicy.org International Public Policy Assocoation

GENERAL PROGRAMME

yWEDNESDAY, JULY 1st 8.00 - 9.30 9.30 - 10.00 10.15 - 12.30

12.30 14.00 16.00 16.15 18.15

-

14.00 16.00 16.15 18.15 19.15

19.30 - 20.30

OPENING REGISTRATION (Gemelli) WELCOME COFFEE (Teatro Dal Verme) WELCOME SPEECH (Teatro Dal Verme) PLENARY SESSION 1: WHAT DOES PUBLIC POLICY DO WITH DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES? (Teatro Dal Verme) LUNCH (Santa Caterina) MULTI-SESSION 1 COFFEE BREAK (Santa Caterina/Santa Agnese) MULTI-SESSION 2 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATION (Gemelli G024) DRINKS RECEPTION (Castello Sforzesco )

yFRIDAY, JULY 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 10.30 - 10.45 10.45 - 12.45

MULTI-SESSION 6 COFFEE BREAK (Santa Caterina/Santa Agnese) MULTI-SESSION 7

12.45 - 14.15 14.15 - 16.30

LUNCH (Santa Caterina) PLENARY SESSION 3A: PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE FIELD (Gemelli Aula Magna) PLENARY SESSION 3B: TEACHING AND SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY (Gemelli G024) PLENARY SESSION 3C: ACADEMIC AND PRACTITIONERS, OPPOSED OR COMPLEMENTARY? (Gemelli G022) COFFEE BREAK (Santa Caterina/Santa Agnese) MULTI-SESSION 8

14.15

- 16.30

14.15

- 16.30

16.30 - 16.45 16.45 - 18.45

yTHURSDAY, JULY 2nd 8.30

- 10.30

MULTI-SESSION 3

10.30 - 10.45 10.45 - 13.00

WELCOME COFFEE (Teatro Dal Verme) PLENARY SESSION 2: KEYNOTE SPEAKER - HELEN INGRAM (Teatro Dal Verme)

13.00 14.30 16.30 16.45 20.30

LUNCH (Santa Caterina) MULTI-SESSION 4 COFFEE BREAK (Santa Caterina/Santa Agnese) MULTI-SESSION 5 GALA DINNER (Museo Diocesano)

-

14.30 16.30 16.45 18.45 0.00

ySATURDAY, JULY 4th 8.30 - 10.30 10.30 - 10.45

MULTI-SESSION 9 COFFEE BREAK (Santa Caterina/Santa Agnese)

10.45 - 13.00

PLENARY SESSION 4: FEEDING THE WORLD, A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL PUBLIC-POLICY CHALLENGE (Gemelli Aula Magna) CLOSING CEREMONY AND DRINK RECEPTION (Gemelli Aula Magna)

13.00 - 13.30

ROBERTO MARONI

PRESIDENT, LOMBARDY REGION

y I am pleased to welcome you to Lombardy for the

INTRODUCTION

second International Conference on Public Policy, organized by Éupolis Lombardia. I am glad that so many participants from all over the world have gathered in Milan to enhance the scientific knowledge on a variety of issues, from the environment to welfare, from migration to economic development. They represent the main challenges we face today as a regional government. Lombardy has been part of all major developments of European economic and political history and is the protagonist of Italy’s industrial, financial, and cultural life. Lombard businesses are internationalized and fully connected to the economy of Europe. Our researchers are active in many scientific centres all over the world and our NGOs contribute to the development of local communities in Africa, Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe. As the government of Italy’s largest region, our international partnerships and activities are multiple. Milan and Lombardy are the destination of millions of tourist each year, and we are particularly proud of hosting this year the International Exhibition - EXPO in our capital city, which is an extraordinary occasion to analyse the challenges our world faces including concerns such as food and energy. Therefore, I am grateful to the organizers of ICPP 2015 for choosing Lombardy as its venue and I warmly thank Éupolis Lombardia and the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore for hosting it.

5X

RAFFAELE CATTANEO

GIANCARLO POLA

y The study of public policy has accumulated expertise,

y On behalf of Éupolis Lombardia,

COUNCIL PRESIDENT, LOMBARDY REGION

models and know-how over the years. This contributes to learning and understanding how social and economic systems work and how public problems may be interpreted and tackled. For policymakers, experience and knowledge are fundamental in order to make most suitable choices. Therefore, I enthusiastically welcome the second International Conference on Public Policy as a wonderful opportunity for investigating how policy research may be fruitful and usable to decision-makers, in order to transfer scientific knowledge to the elaboration of actual policies. The legislative assembly of the Lombardy Region is particularly interested in this, and it has been undertaking policy analysis and evaluation as its principle activities, for the purpose of building better knowledge and better choices for the common good. Thanks to all organisers and participants to the conference. I am confident it will be a success.

y6

PRESIDENT, ÉUPOLIS LOMBARDIA

I greet all students, researchers, scholars, and practitioners who are going to attend the second International Conference on Public Policy. I am sure you will all take advantage of the many opportunities that the four-day conference will offer you, and make the best of your stay in one of the cultural and economic capitals of Europe and the site of EXPO 2015. I would like to underline how much we appreciate, as the Institute for Research of the Lombardy Region, the focus that is given on sub-national issues and policies by many of the papers that are going to be presented and discussed at the conference. The regional dimension of governance notably appears to be at the junction of both local and global dynamics and fluxes and this requires a specific approach to be fully understood. Moreover, this is an extraordinary challenge to the concept of territorial autonomy that is cherished across Europe by a wide array of regional and local communities. Occasions such as the ICPP are therefore very relevant not only for the scientific but also for the political realm. May these days in Milan be highly productive and pleasant for everyone.

7X

CRISTINA TAJANI

GUIDO MERZONI

y As the Milan’s city councilor in charge of research and

y The Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore and its Faculty of Political and Social Sciences are glad to host the International Conference on Public Policy. In our Faculty we nurture and teach knowledge with strong connections to the issues and disciplines being discussed in the conference: political science, economics, law, sociology, history, and psychology. What unites our manifold scientific approaches is the vision that political, social, and economic systems are not self-regulating and hence specific actions to pursue efficiency and social welfare are needed. From the perspective of subsidiarity, the design, governance and management of public policy implies the involvement of public institutions as well as private actors. In a global society, the understanding of relations among people, groups, and institutions, and the search for the best solutions to collective problems are increasingly difficult. And yet, they are unavoidable since politics should pursue the common good. Our lecturers, researchers, and students live in an academic institution well rooted in its fundamental value of being at the service to human person, and over its ninety years of history has been able to pursue mutual enrichment among different schools of thought and methodologies. Therefore, we are happy to welcome over one thousand attendees from all continents for this extraordinary occasion for practitioners, students, and our academic community. On behalf of the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, I wish all participants an enlightening experience, and I hope you will enjoy Università Cattolica and the city of Milan.

CITY COUNCILOR IN CHARGE FOR UNIVERSITY AND RESEARCH, MUNICIPALITY OF MILAN

university, I am honored to welcome all of you to the second International Conference on Public Policy. Milan has had a long tradition in hosting such international events. The city has traditionally been Italy’s connector to the world, a role which is deeply rooted in its soul. This role is particularly evident in 2015, the year in which Milan hosts the Universal Exposition, a unique event held over six months attracting 20 million visitors to the EXPO site, and the city. Another important reason for us to be pleased to host this Conference is that with its twelve academic institutions and more than 190.000 students, our city is one of Europe’s main scientific centers. Our Administration is promoting policies to bolster the importance of these institutions and to make the city be an even more favorable place for studying and doing research. Furthermore, as the theme of the Conference is the research into public policy we would like to underline our commitment to encouraging the growing connection between academics and public administrators in the formulation of better policies. We wish you a fruitful conference and we hope your stay in Milan will be an enjoyable one.

y8

DEAN, FACULTY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

9X

GUY PETERS

ALESSANDRO COLOMBO

y Welcome to Milan and to the second International

y As the local organizer of the second International

PRESIDENT, IPPA

Public Policy Conference! After the success of the first conference in Grenoble in 2013, we began planning this second conference. The level of response to this conference indicates the level of interest in policy issues, and the need to have an international conference where policy scholars can meet to discuss their research and advance the understanding of public policy. We also have formed the International Public Policy Association as an organization to promote the study of public policy throughout the world. As well as sponsoring this conference every second year, we have plans to promote policy studies through publications and cooperative activities with other scholarly organizations and with practitioners. I am especially proud of the international nature of the association, and the involvement of so many leading scholars from around the world. I do hope you will enjoy the conference and we continue to be involved with, and to support, the International Public Policy Association.

LOCAL COORDINATOR OF THE ICPP CONFERENCE 2015 GENERAL DIRECTOR, ÉUPOLIS LOMBARDIA

Conference on Public Policy, Éupolis Lombardia welcomes you in Lombardy. As the Institute for research, statistics and training of the Lombardy Region, we commission and run research on the contemporary challenges of the Lombard economy and society to support public decision-making in the interest of our citizens. We are also active in policy analysis and evaluation for Lombardy’s regional government and assembly and we collaborate on a regular basis with the twelve universities in our region. The Institute’s record in research is well-established and sound; it spans across all policy sectors relevant for our regional government: economic development, demography, agriculture, health, welfare, land use, environment, local finance, and culture among other fields. Our international activities are manifold and we are eager to develop our network of partnerships and collaborations. We are interested in your understanding of contemporary issues and policies. We also welcome suggestions for the ‘Premio Éupolis Lombardia’ award, which we grant each year to distinguished scholars and practitioners who have worked on the linkage between research and decision-making. Our recent laureates are: Piero Bassetti, Julian Le Grand and Robert Putnam. I hope you enjoy these four days of the conference as well as your stay in our region.

INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATION

y14

15 X

PHILIPPE ZITTOUN

COORDINATOR OF THE ICPP CONFERENCE GENERAL SECRETARY, IPPA

y After the incredible success of the first International con-

ference in Grenoble, it seems clear to us that policy researchers want to continue to have access to events where they can share their work, their innovations and their knowledge production, while creating an encompassing network in policy studies. The idea of this second conference is born from this dynamic, which are met the will of two institutions, Éupolis Lombardia and the Univeristà Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Over the last year, the team responsible for the conference has worked hard to offer you a great conference, stressing five main ideas. - Facilitate the meeting between researchers who work on the same policy problematics. For this, we have organized an open call for panels with 18 topics. We received more than 200 proposals, 50% more than in Grenoble. - Be attentive to the quality of the panels by a double evaluation selection process, and with the discussion being two full hours. - Continue to have plenary sessions each day to contribute to building a common framework, where all participant can attend and debate.

INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATION

y16

- Focus on the quality of the conference by organising social events and informal moments that facilitate meeting. Institutionalising our conference by creating a new association which support it and developing a new website which allows us to better manage the conference activity. With over 1600 proposal and more than 1200 participants (in addition to the impressive efforts of the local team both scientifically and organisationally) this conference will surely be a success and will present many opportunities for developing and promoting policy research. We wish you a wonderful conference and invite you to shore your suggestion.

INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATION 17 X

COMMITTEES

COMMITTEES yICPP COLLEGE

DENILSON BANDEIRA COELHO University of Brazil

IRIS GEVA-MAY City University of New York, USA

MARLEEN BRANS University of Leuven, Belgium

BRIAN HEAD University of Queenland, Australia

COMMITTEES yICPP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

GILIBERTO CAPANO Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy

MICHAEL HOWLETT Simon Fraser University, Canada

LAURA CHAQUÉS University of Barcelona, Spain

FRED LAZIN Ben Gurion University, Israël

FRANK FISCHER Rutgers University, USA

CIQI MEI Tsinghua University, China

GUILLAUME FONTAINE Flasco, Ecuador

JOSE LUIS MENDEZ El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico

THE PRESIDENT

THE VICE-PRESIDENTS

GUY PETERS University of Pittsburgh, USA

DIANE STONE Murdoch University, Australia

THE TREASURER

THE GENERAL SECRETARY

GILIBERTO CAPANO Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy

PHILIPPE ZITTOUN LET-ENTPEUniversity of Lyon, France

FRANK FISCHER Rutgers University, USA

MARLEEN BRANS University of Leuven, Belgium

M. RAMESH University of Singapore

OTHER MEMBERS

y20

JAE MOON Yonsei University, Korea

GUY PETERS University of Pittsburgh, USA

M. RAMESH University of Singapore

CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI University of Exeter, UK

DIANE STONE Murdoch University, Australia

GRACE SKOGSTAD University of Toronto, Canada

CHRIS WEIBLE University of Colorado, USA

PHILIPPE ZITTOUN LET-ENTPEUniversity of Lyon, France

CHISTINE ROTHMAYR Allison University of Montreal, USA

KLAUS SCHUBERT University of Munster, Germany

MICHAEL HOWLETT Simon Fraser University, Canada

GRACE SKOGSTAD University of Toronto, Canada

CHRIS WEIBLE University of Colorado, USA

LAURA CHAQUÉS University of Barcelona, Spain

GUILLAUME FONTAINE Flasco, Ecuador

21 X

y22

COMMITTEES yINTERNATIONAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

COMMITTEES yINTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

PHILIPPE ZITTOUN Conference Coordinator LET-ENTPEUniversity of Lyon, France

ALESSANDRO COLOMBO Local Coordinator of Milan 2015, Éupolis Lombardia, Milan, Italy

GILIBERTO CAPANO Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy

FRANK FISCHER Rutgers University, USA

MELISSA HAUSSMAN Carleton University, Canada, Chair of IPSA RC 19 on gender policy

ROBERT HOPPE University of Twente, NL Chair of IPSA RC 32 “Public Policy & Administration”

EDUARDO ARARAL Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan

VESELY ARNOST Charles University, Czech Republic

CAROL BACCHI University of Adelaide, Australia

FRANK R BAUMGARTNER University of North California, USA

DANIEL BELAND Saskatchewan University, Canada

NINA BELYAEVA Higher School of Economics, Moscow

MICHAEL HOWLETT Simon Fraser University, Canada

FRED LAZIN Ben Gurion University, Israël

HELEN MARGETTS Oxford Internet Institute, UK

LESLIE A PAL Carleton University, Canada

GUY PETERS University of Pittsburgh, USA

KARSTEN RONIT University of Copenhagen, Danemark Chair of IPSA RC 38 on Business and Politics

MARK BEVIR University of California Berkeley, USA

JIM BJORKMAN Institute of Social Studies, NL

MARLEEN BRANS University of Leuven, Belgium

GILIBERTO CAPANO Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy

BEN CASHORE Yale University, USA

LAURA CHAQUÉS University of Barcelona, Spain

KIEKE OKMA Wagner School of Public Service, NYU Chair of IPSA RC 25 on health policy

M. RAMESH University of Singapore

RICHARD FORDING APSA - Section of Public Policy

HAL COLEBATCH University of New South Wales, Australia

CARSTEN DAUGBJERG University of Copenhagen, Denmark

MEREDITH EDWARDS Australia National University, Australia

ALAIN FAURE PACTE, Science Po Grenoble, France

FRANK FISCHER Rutgers University, USA

GUILLAUME FONTAINE Flasco, Ecuador

JOHN ERIK FOSSUM University of Oslo, Norway

SCOTT FRITZEN NUS, Singapore

IRIS GEVA-MAY Editor of JCPA

CHRISTOFFER GREEN PEDERSEN Aarhus, Denmark

STEVEN GRIGGS University of De Montfort, UK

VIRGINIE GUIRAUDON CEE - Science Po Paris, France

23 X

COMMITTEES yINTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

MARTEEN HAJER University of Amsterdam, NL

PATRICK HASSENTEUFEL University of Versailles, France

BRIAN HEAD University of Queenland, Australia

CAROLYN HENDRIKS Australia National University, Australia

PETER JOHN UCL London, UK

COMMITTEES yINTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

XUE LAN University of Tsinghua, China

HELMUT WOLLMAN University of Berlin, Germany

ZDRAVKO PETAK University of Zaghreb, Croatia

yNATIONAL COMMITTEE

y24

PATRICK LE GALÈS Science Po Paris, France

GIANDOMENICO MAJONE Emeritous Professor of political Science, Italy

ALLAN MCCONNELL University of Sydney, Australia

JAE MOON Yonsei University, Korea

PEROLA ÖBERG Uppsala University, Sweden

LESLIE A. PAL Carleton University, Canada

ALESSANDRO COLOMBO Éupolis Lombardia

GILIBERTO CAPANO Scuola Normale Superiore

MITA MARRA AIV - Italina Evaluation Association

GIORGIO RAMPA University of Pavia

BRUNO DENTE Politecnico di Milano

GIOVANNI FATTORE Bocconi University

RICCARDO PELIZZO Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan

GUY PETERS University of Pittsburgh

M. RAMESH University of Singapore

CLAUDIO M. RADAELLI University of Exeter, UK

CHISTINE ROTHMAYR Allison University of Montreal, USA

VIVIEN SCHMIDT Boston University, USA

GUIDO MERZONI Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

GLORIA REGONINI University of Milan

GIANMARIA MARTINI University of Bergamo

CARLA BARBATI IULM Internatinoal University

RAFFAELLA MANZINI LIUC Univeristy

ROBERTO MORDACCI Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele

KLAUS SCHUBERT University of Munster, Germany

GRACE SKOGSTAD University of Toronto, Canada

TIM TENBENSEL University of Auckland, New Zealand

KATHLEEN THELEN MIT, USA

FRÉDÉRIC VARONE University of Geneva, Switzerland

CHRIS WEIBLE University of Colorado, USA

LUIGI ORSENIGO Institute for Advanced Studies of Pavia

GIOVANNI CORRAO University of Milano Bicocca

MAURIZIO CAFAGNO University of Insubria

MAURIZIO MEMO University of Brescia

25 X

COMMITTEES yLOCAL ORGANIZING TEAM

PARTNERS

FRANCESCO BEBER-FRASER Local Team

SHAUNA BERNIER International Team Assistant, International Public Policy Association

ARIANNA BRAMBILLA Local Team

ROBERTO BRAMBILLA Head, Postgraduate Education Division Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

CLAUDIA CARNEVALE Éupolis Lombardia

CHIARA CATTANEO Local Team, International Public Policy Association

DAVIDE FANTINATI Graduate Schools Office, ASERI Executive - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

MARIO GATTI Administrative Director, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

EMANUELA GIUSTI Éupolis Lombardia

WIAME IDRISSI Local Team, International Public Policy Association

DOUNIA KHALLOUKI LET-ENTPE, Vaulx-en-Velin

MARIA TERESA MASTROTA Local Team

ANNALISA MAURIELLO Éupolis Lombardia

MARTINO MAZZOLENI Associate Professor of Political Science, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

ISHANI MUKHERJEE Newsletter Responsible, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

MAÏMOUNA NDONG-ETROIT Volounteers Coordinator, LET-ENTPE, Vaulx-en-Velin

FRANCESCO NEGRI Event Manager, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

CHIARA ODORIZZI Local Team Coordinator

JESSICA YOM Exhibitors and External Relations Assistant, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

y26

yIPPA

y

Part of the National University of Singapore, the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy was established in 2004 with the mission of educating and inspiring current and future generations of leaders to raise the standards of governance in Asia, improve the lives of its people and contribute to the transformation of the region. With over 400 students spanning 70 countries, the School’s unique Asian focus allows students to experience public policy education in a distinctively global environment. The School has a number of research centres and institutes that contribute both to scholarly inquiry as well as policymaking, and frequently plays host to distinguished speakers and visiting scholars. For more information about the School, visit www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg.

y

The École Nationale des Travaux Publics de l’État (ENTPE) is an engineering college of the University of Lyon. Supported by the Ministries of Environment, Transport and Sustainable Development of France, ENTPE provides opportunities for engineering students interested in gaining expertise in transport, urban development and environment policies for pursuing government or private sector careers. ENTPE offers programs for Bachelors and Masters degrees and contains six academic research unit specialising in various topics. One of these research units - The Laboratoire d’Économie des Transports (LET) - specialises in transport policy. It is attached to the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS),the University of Lyon and ENTPE. LET’s research activities are at the crossroads of transport, regional studies and society. Its research staff comes from various disciplines such as economics, engineering, geography, sociology and political science. For more information : http://entpe.frand http://www.let.fr

27 X

yASSOCIATION PARTNERS

y

Founded in 1911, The University of Hong Kong is a comprehensive research-intensive English language University which ranks 29th in the World and 1st in Asia. Research and teaching on public policy is spread throughout the University’s ten Faculties and Schools to focus on a broad spectrum of significant public issues including ageing, behavioral health, civil society and NGOs, climate change, the economy, education, environment, food safety, housing, internet, media and culture, non-profit management, public administration, public health, social work, tourism, transport, urban planning, and water governance. The University seeks to establish a world-leading public policy programme that includes cuttingedge research and innovative teaching and learning, and that provides a platform for public engagement focused on novel solutions to local, regional, and global problems. The public policy program organizes public lectures, policy forums, seminars and workshops; has established a public engagement platform; and provides opportunities for visiting academics and practitioners. Together with the University of Southern California, we will launch a joint Master of Global Public Policy, aimed at providing solutions to critical transboundary public policy issues, providing EastWest perspectives on policy problems, and nurturing the next generation of policy entrepreneurs. For more information, please visit http://www.socsc.hku.hk/pp/

yASSOCIATION PARTNERS

y

Sciences Po Grenoble. An Institute of Political Studies Founded in 1948, Sciences Po Grenoble is one of the ten Institutes of Political Studies in France placed under the aegis of the National Foundation of Political Science. Its rigorous admissions process, solely by competitive exam, places it in the category of the Grandes Ecoles. An Ambitious Intellectual Program A taste for action, scientific rigor, intellectual agility, moral uprightness… These are the qualities that Sciences PO Grenoble instills through all its programs in order to train brilliant, competent and responsible decision makers. Within this framework, it is up to each student to find the path to his or her own intellectual and personal development. A multidisciplinary education Whereas the second/graduate cycle emphasizes professionally oriented specialization, the first/undergraduate cycle offers a panorama of the humanities and social sciences in interaction with the main problems addressed in political science. Students are also encouraged to do internships – in France or abroad – and to confront their academic culture with the diverse forms of social and professional culture which they encounter. Individualized advising Students receive individualized advising at every stage of their training and elective courses help them forge their own project. Exchanges with teachers are frequent and facilitated by a pedagogy that favors small workgroups. Quality facilities A library with some 120,000 volumes, 2,400 periodicals and connected to the major research networks. A press room, over one hundred free access computers, Wifi… The students have a work environment that allows them to respond effectively to the demands of teachers.

y28

29 X

yASSOCIATION

yEXHIBITORS

A diploma of excellence leading to numerous professional opportunities The Sciences PO diplomas deserve their reputation and open the door to numerous professional opportunities. The institute’s alumni – members of a very active alumni association – are now executives in national public administrations, local government and businesses. Many of them work in political institutions, the media or international organizations. Certain graduates prefer to prepare administrative exams (ENA) or begin a doctorate.

Publishers with manned stand during the conference: - Edward Elgar - Eleven International - MacMillan Publishers LTD - Oxford University Press - Policy and Society - International Public Policy Association and its Partners

PARTNERS

A European caliber research center Sciences PO Grenoble occupies a prominent place in research in the political, administrative and social sciences. The PACTE laboratory (Public Policy, Political Action, Territories) is one of the largest French research units in social sciences. Linked to the CNRS, Pierre MendèsFrance University and Joseph Fourier University, it is home to nearly 250 researchers. Sciences PO Grenoble in Figures - 20 master’s programs - 101 administrative, technical and library staff - 520 faculty and professionals - In 2013, 1 200 students attend Sciences Po Grenoble.

Contact International Public Policy Association The International Public Policy Association is based in France in the LET/ ENTPE. Mail adress: LET ENTPE, 2 Rue Maurice Audin, 69120 Vaulx-en-Velin, France. For any questions or requests, please contact us at: [email protected] - 00 33 (0)472 0472 53

y30

31 X

PLENARY SESSIONS

WELCOME SPEECH

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATION

Wednesday, July 1st - 9.30 - 10.00

(Teatro dal Verme, San Giovanni sul Muro Street, 2) Roberto Maroni, President Lombardy Region Cristina Tajani, City Councilor in charge for University and Research, Municipality of Milan (IT) Franco Anelli, Rector Catholic University of Milan (IT) Guy Peters, President International Public Policy Association (USA) Avv. Giuseppe Guzzetti, President Cariplo Foundation (IT) - tbc Giancarlo Pola, President Éupolis Lombardia (IT) Alessandro Colombo, General Director Éupolis Lombardia (IT) Philippe Zittoun, General Secretary International Public Policy Association (FR)

PLENARY SESSION 1

WHAT DOES PUBLIC POLICY DO WITH DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES? Wednesday, July 1st - 10.15 - 12.30 (Teatro dal Verme) PARTICIPANTS

ALESSANDRO BALDUCCI Politecnico di Milano, Italy

CHAIR

GILIBERTO CAPANO University of Bologna - Italy

y34

MARC BEVIR University of California, Berkely, USA

y

AKHIL GUPTA University of California, Los Angeles, USA

PATRICK LE GALÈS CEE-Science Po, Paris-Curs, France

MICHAEL PLUMMER SAIS Europe, Boulogne Johns Hopkins University, USA

VIVIEN A. SCHMIDT Boston University, USA

Public policy is now an autonomous discipline, with its own vocabulary, dimensions and analytical categories. But it cannot avoid interacting with other academic disciplines and very often Public Policy borrows concepts or framework from the “mother-disciplines” or the “older sisters” or develops a multi-disciplinary approach. Since its foundation, public policy has grown up by focusing on around the following dimensions : the policy orientation (politics is not just about elections, political parties, and public institutions’ behaviour) the attention to policy dynamics (the process can make the difference) ; the craft of problem solving.

Wednesday, July 1st - 18.15 - 19.15 (Gemelli G024)

GUY PETERS President of IPPA

PHILIPPE ZITTOUN General Secretary of IPPA

Dear participants to the conference, On the 20th December 2014, at Science Po Paris, we created the International Public Policy Association. We voted its constitution and defined its goals which are : 1. To promote scientific research in the field of Public Policy and to contribute to its international development 2. To organize a regular international general conference on Public Policy 3. To develop international network activities which contribute to the Public Policy field 4. To promote the International diffusion of knowledge on Public Policy 5. To develop other relevant activities linked to the field of Public Policy 6. To promote research on Public Policy and the use of policymaking organization The first action of this Association is to be the support of the International Conference of Public Policy which will be organized every 2 years. Most of you decided to register to our Association which have now one thousand members. To present the goals of the Association, its constitution, its next actions, and to have a debate on its future, we are happy to invite you to the General Assembly. 35 X

PLENARY SESSION 2

PLENARY SESSION 3A

Thursday, July 2nd - 10.45 - 13.00

Friday, July 3rd - 14.15 - 16.30

KEYNOTE SPEAKER: HELEN INGRAM

PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE FIELD

(Teatro dal Verme) KEYNOTE SPEAKER

CHAIR

DISCUSSANT

PARTICIPANTS

HELEN INGRAM University of California at Irvine, USA

GUY PETERS University of Pittsburgh, USA

LUIGI BOBBIO University of Turin, Italy

BRUNO DENTE Politecnico di Milano, Italy

BRIAN JONES University of Texas at Austin, USA

CHAIR

yThis plenary panel examines the origins and evolution of

y “The elephant in the corner is the wounded and sagging

figure of democracy, but public policy scholars appear not to see it. The voices of the privileged, well-regarded citizens are loud and influential, while ordinary citizens barely speak with a whisper that is lost on the ears of inattentive policy-makers. The public policies that emerge from and reinforce such uneven participation and representation perpetuate inequality. Yet, few public policy studies even mention democracy and certainly do not use it as criteria for evaluation. How has it happened that the study of public policy has flourished, and yet the critical issue of policy implications for democracy is unnoticed?

y36

(Gemelli Aula Magna)

FRANK FISHER Rutgers University, USA

WAYNE PARSONS University of Cardiff, UK

BERYL RADIN Georgetown University, USA

GRACE SKOGSTAD University of Toronto Scarborough, Canada

the field of policy studies, both from the perspective of policy analysis and from that of policymaking process. The assessment of policy analysis focuses on the long-standing but often evasive effort to supply policy decision-makers with usable knowledge. Toward this end, the discussion will examine the relationship of quantitative and qualitative approaches, including the role of interpretation. With respect to policymaking, the panelists will explore the efforts to develop an explanatory theory of the policy process, including the funnel of causality, the stages model, the punctuated equilibrium approach, the multiples streams framework, the institutional rational choice approach and the theory of advocacy coalition framework, in an effort to sort out both what has been accomplished and the nature of challenges that remain. Especially important, in this regard, is the degree to which these theories succeed in explaining policy change.

37 X

PLENARY SESSION 3B

PLENARY SESSION 3C

Friday, July 3rd - 14.15 - 16.30

Friday, July 3rd - 14.15 - 16.30

TEACHING AND SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC POLICY (Gemelli G024) PARTICIPANTS

CARSTEN DAUGBJERG Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University Australia

CHAIR

MICHAEL HOWLETT Simon Fraser University Canada

y38

ACADEMIC AND PRACTITIONERS, OPPOSED OR COMPLEMENTARY? (Gemelli G022) PARTICIPANTS

CATHERINE ROTHMAYR ALLISON Dean of Department of Political Science, University of Montreal Canada

ROBERTO ZOBOLI Faculty of Political and Social Science, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Italy

JOHN T.S. KEELER Dean of Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh USA

y This panel will explore the state of Schools of Public

Policy worldwide and developments in the pedagogy of public policy in the university. It will look at how Schools of Public Policy have developed and spread worldwide, their similarities and differences, and the problems they face in promoting high quality research and teaching. The panel will examine both conceptual and structural issues related to these organizations including pedagogical questions such as the role and weight given to of policy theory and practice given in policy courses and programmes, the use of regular versus case study methods in the classroom, concerns with existing coverage, scope and structure of public policy programmes and training and also the current and future role of teaching technologies. Participants will share their experiences and thoughts on these subjects in a roundtable format leaving most of the time for an interactive discussion with audience members.

FABRIZIO BARCA Ministry of Economy and Finace, Italy

CHAIR

ALESSANDRO COLOMBO Éupolis Lombardia, Milan, Italy

RAFFAELE CATTANEO President Lombardy Regional Council Italy

GIUSEPPE GUZZETTI Fondazione Cariplo Italy - tbc

ROBERT HOPPE Univeristy of Twente, Netherlands

LESLIE PAL Carlton University, Canada

y This session explores the boundaries and connections

between public policy as an object of scientific research and public policy as an activity. Academics study policies to support policymakers, while practitioners need scientific support to acquire evidence about how things are done or should be done. And yet, while evidence-based-policy should have come to an age, the two realms do not often collaborate and, rather, risk being insulated from each other. This is actually an old issue : “there is nothing a government hates more than being well informed” (J.M. Keynes, 1937). Prominent experts from both academic and policymaking fields will explore mutual understandings - and misunderstandings - between research and practice, on along both epistemological and pragmatic lines.

39 X

PLENARY SESSION 4

FEEDING THE WORLD, A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL PUBLIC-POLICY CHALLENGE

With the support of Institut Français Italia

Saturday, July 4th - 10.45 - 13.00 (Gemelli Aula Magna) PARTICIPANTS

RENATO MALUF Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro Brazil

CHAIR

EVE FOUILLEUX CNRS - CIRAD, University of Montpellier, France

STEWART LOCKIE Cairns Institute, James Cook University Australia

WARD ANSEEUW CIRAD, University of Pretoria South Africa

NORA MCKEON Rome Three University, Formally UN/FAO

y Feeding the world is a multi-dimensional policy challenge.

Despite the fact that the amount of food available at the global scale exceeded the daily intake requirement for a working person in 1981, and has constantly increased since then, 805 million people were still suffering chronic hunger and malnutrition in 2013, most of them in developing countries (FAO, 2014). At the same time, 1300 million people suffer from obesity, both in developing and developed countries (WHO, 2012). Additionally, the predominant way in which food is produced has been confronted with both social and environmental crises worldwide which call for renewed production models.

CLOSING CEREMONY Livia Pomodoro, President Milan Center for Food Law and Policy Representative of the Regional Government Guy Peters, President of International Public Policy Association

y40

41 X

PANELS SCHEDULE

MULTISESSION 1

MULTISESSION 1

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 THE PROBLEM OF POLICY PROBLEMS Patrik Marier / B. Guy Peters / Mireille Paquet

TOPIC 8 : POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 13 / SESSION 1 WHAT’S NEW IN POLICY EVALUATION? EXPLORING THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ASSESS COMPLEX PROGRAMS Mita Marra / Francesco Mazzeo Rinaldi

TOPIC 6 : POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 7 / SESSION 1 DO REGIONS REALLY MATTER? REGIONALIZATION STRATEGIES AS A FIELD OF INVESTIGATION AND A CHALLENGE FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS Josua Gräbener / Fanny Sbaraglia

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 POLICY WORK RESEARCH: LINKING EVIDENCE WITH THEORY Martin Nekola / Arnošt Veselý

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 11 / SESSION 1 ADVANCING PUBLIC POLICY ASSESSMENT IN GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (GEAS) Christian Flachsland / Martin Kowarsch

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 NON-STATE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE POLICY PROCESS: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES Bryan Evans

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 POLITICAL ADVISERS, POLICY THEORY AND THE POLICY PROCESS Richard Shaw / Jonathan Craft / Chris Eichbaum

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 7 / SESSION 1 PERFORMANCE FEDERALISM Stephen Jones / Geert Bouckaert

GEMELLI G114

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 5 / SESSION 1 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION: ANALYSIS OF CASES FROM CLASSICAL AND NEW PERSPECTIVES Mauricio Olavarria-Gambi / Cristian Pliscoff

GEMELLI G121

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 12 / SESSION 1 IS IT RESEARCH “FOR” POLICY OR RESEARCH “OF” POLICY? Alessandro Colombo

GEMELLI G108

GEMELLI G016 S. AGNESE SA115 S. AGNESE SA117

S. AGNESE SA112

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 POLICY RESPONSES TO ‘WICKED PROBLEMS’ - THEORY AND PRACTICE Brian Head / Joshua Newman

LANZONE VL2-04/G253

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 17 / SESSION 1 JUDICIAL POLICIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL MODERNIZATION. A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE JUDICIARY Giancarlo Vecchi / Daniela Piana

TOPIC 3 : POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 10 / SESSION 1 POLICY NARRATIVES AND PUBLIC POLICY Elizabeth Shanahan / Michael Jones

S. AGNESE SA221

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE BUDGETARY PROCESS Grace Skogstad TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 30 SOCIAL POLICIES IN GLOBAL MARKETS Holly Jarman

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 9 / SESSION 1 CONNECTING THE DOTS BETWEEN CLIMATE POLICY AND SOCIAL POLICY: NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICAL CONDITIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WELFARE STATES (AKA ECO-SOCIAL STATES) Mi Ah Schoyen / Max Koch

LANZONE VL1-02/G153

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 CHALLENGES TO EUROPEAN WELFARE SYSTEMS - CURRENT PROBLEMS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES Klaus Schubert / Johanna Kuhlmann

S. AGNESE SA015

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 LEGITIMACY, PARTICIPATION AND ESCALATION IN THE COURSE OF POLICY PROCESSES FOR LARGE BUILDING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Nils C. Bandelow / Peter Biegelbauer

GEMELLI G113

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 CHALLENGES TO ENERGY MARKETS: TRIGGERS AND POLICY RESPONSES Jale Tosun / Achim Lang / Michael Dobbins

S. AGNESE SA114

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 MAKING GOVERNANCE WORK: POLICY MAKING IN AN ERA OF POLARIZED POLITICS David Jesuit / Ian Roberge

GEMELLI G022

GEMELLI G005 LANZONE VL0-01/G053 GEMELLI G122 GEMELLI G112 GEMELLI G112 S. AGNESE SA223

y44

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 POLICY TRANSFER: MICRO-MECHANICS AND MACRO-EFFECTS: LOCAL AND NATIONAL ACTORS Leslie Pal / Magdaléna Hadjiisky

LANZONE VL1-02/G153

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00

45 X

MULTISESSION 2

MULTISESSION 1

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 17 / SESSION 2 JUDICIAL POLICIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL MODERNIZATION. A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE JUDICIARY Giancarlo Vecchi / Daniela Piana

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 MAKING GOVERNANCE WORK: POLICY MAKING IN AN ERA OF POLARIZED POLITICS David Jesuit / Ian Roberge

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 10 / SESSION 2 POLICY NARRATIVES AND PUBLIC POLICY Elizabeth Shanahan / Michael Jones

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 11 / SESSION 1 INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF POLICYMAKING Brenton Prosser / Maïmouna NDONG-ETROIT

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 15 / SESSION 1 THE POLICY OF INSTITUTIONAL REFORM Martino Mazzoleni / Nicola Pasini

S. AGNESE SA015 GEMELLI G115 S. AGNESE SA114

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 CHALLENGES TO ENERGY MARKETS: TRIGGERS AND POLICY RESPONSES Jale Tosun / Achim Lang / Michael Dobbins

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 8 / SESSION 1 SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND POLICY ANALYSIS: THEORETICAL CHALLENGES AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS Paolo Roberto Graziano / Manuela Caiani

GEMELLI G135

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 POLICY TRANSFER: MICRO-MECHANICS AND MACRO-EFFECTS: LOCAL AND NATIONAL ACTORS Leslie Pal / Magdaléna Hadjiisky

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 6 / SESSION 2 LEGITIMACY, PARTICIPATION AND ESCALATION IN THE COURSE OF POLICY PROCESSES FOR LARGE BUILDING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS Nils C. Bandelow / Peter Biegelbauer

LANZONE VL1-03/G151

GEMELLI G135

GEMELLI G122 GEMELLI G005 LANZONE VL0-01/G053

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS/ ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PANEL 24 / SESSION 1 REGULATORY POLICY FOR WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES: DESIGN, EVALUATION, AND POLICY LEARNING Elisa Vanin / Maria Salvetti / Alberto Asquer

S. AGNESE SA222

TOPIC 17: INTERNET AND POLICY PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 POLICY MAKING IN GOVERNING THE INTERNET: COMPARING NOVEL APPROACHES AND RISING CHALLENGES Andrea Calderaro

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 10 / SESSION 1 ADVANCES IN THE MULTIPLE STREAMS FRAMEWORK OF THE POLICY PROCESS Thomas Birkland / Nikolaos Zahariadis

S. AGNESE SA223

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC POLICY AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Laurence Bherer / Joan Font

TOPIC 16: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 TECHNOLOGY CLUSTERS: SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION Raffaella Manzini / Michele Arra

S. AGNESE SA112

TOPIC 11: DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 DISCURSIVE PRACTICES IN PUBLIC POLICY: THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE Anna Potsar / Dmitry Zaytsev

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15

S. AGNESE SA326

S. AGNESE SA325

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 14 / SESSION 1 POLICY INTEGRATION AND THE COORDINATION OF WICKED PROBLEMS Duncan Russel / Helle Ørsted Nielsen

GEMELLI G134

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 12 / SESSION 1 POLITICAL AGENCY IN THE POLICY PROCESS Jan Olsson / Erik Hysing

GEMELLI G024

y46

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 10 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC PROBLEM-SOLVING THROUGH CO-PRODUCTION Tina Nabatchi / Maddalena Sorrentino / Mariafrancesca Sicilia

LANZONE VL1-03/G151

LANZONE VL2-05/G251

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00

47 X

MULTISESSION 2

MULTISESSION 2

y48

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 COMPARING POLICY ADVISORY SYSTEMS Thurid Hustedt / Martin Schulz / Jan Van Damme

TOPIC 11: DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 DISCURSIVE PRACTICES IN PUBLIC POLICY: THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE Anna Potsar / Dmitry Zaytsev

TOPIC 17: INTERNET AND POLICY PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY Helen Margetts

GEMELLI G113

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS/ ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PANEL 25 / SESSION 1 GREEN FISCAL REFORMS AND EMPLOYMENT POLICIES Roberto Zoboli / Aldo Ravazzi Douvan

GEMELLI G114

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 8 / SESSION 1 CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY NETWORKS Jeffrey Broadbent / Antje Witting

LANZONE VL2-04/G253

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS/ ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PANEL 10 / SESSION 1 LEARNING ABOUT POLICY PATHWAYS Benjamin Cashore

S. AGNESE SA117 GEMELLI G024

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 6 / SESSION 2 PUBLIC POLICY AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Laurence Bherer / Joan Font

GEMELLI G112

GEMELLI G121 GEMELLI G108

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 15 / SESSION 1 EVIDENCE BASED BUREAUCRACIES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF PUBLIC POLICIES Patrick Hassenteufel / Benamouzig Daniel / Magali Robelet

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING Caner Bakir / Darryl Jarvis

S. AGNESE SA326

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 POLICY WORK RESEARCH: LINKING EVIDENCE WITH THEORY Martin Nekola / Arnošt Veselý

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 10 / SESSION 2 PUBLIC PROBLEM-SOLVING THROUGH CO-PRODUCTION Tina Nabatchi / Maddalena Sorrentino / Mariafrancesca Sicilia

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 NETWORKS AND NETWORK ANALYSIS IN POLICY Kathryn Oliver / Michele Acuto / Karin Ingold

S. AGNESE SA222

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 5 / SESSION 2 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION: ANALYSIS OF CASES FROM CLASSICAL AND NEW PERSPECTIVES Mauricio Olavarria-Gambi / Cristian Pliscoff

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 4 / SESSION 2 POLITICAL ADVISERS, POLICY THEORY AND THE POLICY PROCESS Richard Shaw / Jonathan Craft / Chris Eichbaum

LANZONE VL2-05/G251

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 6 / SESSION 2 POLICY RESPONSES TO ‘WICKED PROBLEMS’ - THEORY AND PRACTICE Brian Head / Joshua Newman

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 NON-STATE ORGANISATIONS IN THE POLICY PROCESS: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES Bryan Evans

LANZONE VL1-02/G153

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 THE PROBLEM OF POLICY PROBLEMS Patrik Marier / B. Guy Peters

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15

GEMELLI G134

S. AGNESE SA325

S. AGNESE SA221

S. AGNESE SA115

GEMELLI G016

GEMELLI G022

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15

TOPIC 17: INTERNET AND POLICY PANEL 4 / SESSION 2 POLICY MAKING IN GOVERNING THE INTERNET: COMPARING NOVEL APPROACHES AND RISING CHALLENGES Andrea Calderaro

49 X

MULTISESSION 3

MULTISESSION 3

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 HOW DO DEMOCRACY AND POLICY EVALUATION SPEAK TO EACH OTHER? Fritz Sager / Thomas Saretzki

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 1 / SESSION 3 NON-STATE ORGANISATIONS IN THE POLICY PROCESS: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES Bryan Evans

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 8 / SESSION 1 POLICY LEARNING & POLICY CHANGE: THEORIZING THE RELATION FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES Stéphane Moyson / Peter Scholten / Christopher Weible

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 15 / SESSION 2 EVIDENCE BASED BUREAUCRACIES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF PUBLIC POLICIES Patrick Hassenteufel / Benamouzig Daniel / Magali Robelet

TOPIC 11: DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 INTERSECTIONALITY BASED POLICY ANALYSIS: INNOVATING AND TRANSFORMING POLICY Olena Hankivsky / Julia Jordan-Zachery

S. AGNESE SA222

TOPIC 9: METHODOLOGIES PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 WHAT METHODOGY TO STUDY POLICY PROCESS? Philippe Zittoun

LANZONE VL1-02/G153

LANZONE VL0-01/G053 S. AGNESE SA325

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 13 / SESSION 1 ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE POLIS: POLITICAL ENTREPRENEURS, POLICY MAKING, AND DIVERSE CONTEXTS Evangelia Petridou / Lee Miles

GEMELLI G135

GEMELLI G114 GEMELLI G115 LANZONE VL2-05/G251

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 6 / SESSION 2 COMPARING POLICY ADVISORY SYSTEMS Thurid Hustedt / Martin Schulz / Jan Van Damme

S. AGNESE SA114

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 REASSESSING THE ROLE OF IGNORANCE IN POLICYMAKING Marc-Olivier Déplaude / Didier Torny

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 11 / SESSION 1 POLICY CHANGE AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS CHANGE: ENDS, MEANS, PROCESSES, OUTCOMES Maria Velasco

GEMELLI G121

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 19 / SESSION 1 POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR PUBLICS Noemi Lendvai

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 18 / SESSION 1 THE POLITICS SURROUNDING PUBLIC POLICY IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH Lauriane Gay / Francesca Di Matteo

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 NON-IMPLEMENTATION POLICY TOOLS: USES AND CONSEQUENCES MIchael Howlett

GEMELLI G022

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 11 / SESSION 1 ANALYSING INSTRUMENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY: THE CASE OF SOCIAL POLICY Jane Jenson / Nora Nagels

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 8 / SESSION 2 SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND POLICY ANALYSIS: THEORETICAL CHALLENGES AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS Paolo Roberto Graziano / Manuela Caiani

S. AGNESE SA115

S. AGNESE SA223

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 3 POLICY TRANSFER: MICRO-MECHANICS AND MACRO-EFFECTS: LOCAL AND NATIONAL ACTORS Leslie Pal / Magdaléna Hadjiisky

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 7 / SESSION 1 EXAMINING THE LEGITIMATION STRATEGIES OF DELEGATED AGENCIES Amanda Smullen / Matt Wood

S. AGNESE SA221

LANZONE VL2-04/G253 GEMELLI G122

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 10 / SESSION 2 ADVANCES IN THE MULTIPLE STREAMS FRAMEWORK OF THE POLICY PROCESS Thomas Birkland / Nikolaos Zahariadis

GEMELLI G134

GEMELLI G005

y50

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 GROUNDING POLYCENTRIC GOVERNANCE: CONSTITUTIONAL RULES, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND THEIR ILLUSTRATION IN WATER MANAGEMENT Andreas Thiel / Bill Blomquist / Anas Malik

S. AGNESE SA112

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30

51 X

MULTISESSION 4

MULTISESSION 3 Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 THE NEW POLICY AND POLITICS OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE Carsten Daugbjer / Peter Feindt

TOPIC 2 : COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 11 / SESSION 2 ANALYSING INSTRUMENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY: THE CASE OF SOCIAL POLICY Jane Jenson / Nora Nagels

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 8 / SESSION 3 SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND POLICY ANALYSIS: THEORETICAL CHALLENGES AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS Paolo Roberto Graziano / Manuela Caiani

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 13 / SESSION 1 PRIVATE SECTOR AND UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE: EXAMINING EVIDENCE AND DECONSTRUCTING RHETORIC Anuj Kapilashrami / Mohga Kamal-Yanni / Jessica Hamer

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 REASSESSING THE ROLE OF IGNORANCE IN POLICYMAKING Marc-Olivier Déplaude / Didier Torny

GEMELLI G134 LANZONE VL1-03/G151 GEMELLI G115

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 DO POPULIST PARTIES MATTER? CHALLENGING THE LINK BETWEEN POLICY DISCOURSE AND POLICY OUTPUTS Claire Dupuy / Nathalie Schiffino-Leclercq

NIRONE NI111

LANZONE VL2-04/G253 GEMELLI G122 GEMELLI G113

TOPIC 2 : COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 5 / SESSION 1 PATTERNS AND PATHWAYS OF CONVERGENCE/DIVERGENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Martina Vukasovic / Donald Westerheijden

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 19 / SESSION 2 POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR PUBLICS Noemi Lendvai

S. AGNESE SA115

S. AGNESE SA326

TOPIC 17: INTERNET AND POLICY PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY Helen Margetts

GEMELLI G016

TOPIC 16: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION GOVERNANCE Ellen van Bueren / Thomas Hoppe

TOPIC 1 : POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 12 / SESSION 1 INFORMATION PROCESSING AND POLICY DYNAMICS Samuel Workman / Christian Breunig

S. AGNESE SA117

GEMELLI G112

TOPIC 15: POLITICS, POLICY AND BUSINESS PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 BUSINESS POLICY Graham Wilson

TOPIC 1 : POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 GROUNDING POLYCENTRIC GOVERNANCE: CONSTITUTIONAL RULES, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND THEIR ILLUSTRATION IN WATER MANAGEMENT Andreas Thiel / Bill Blomquist / Anas Malik

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 10 / SESSION 3 ADVANCES IN THE MULTIPLE STREAMS FRAMEWORK OF THE POLICY PROCESS Thomas Birkland / Nikolaos Zahariadis

S. AGNESE SA223

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 6 / SESSION 2 INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING Caner Bakir / Darryl Jarvis

S. AGNESE SA015

GEMELLI G024

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 6 / SESSION 3 PUBLIC POLICY AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT Laurence Bherer / Joan Font

GEMELLI G113

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC SECTOR MODERNIZATION BETWEEN NPM-DRIVEN SHIFTS AND POST-NPM MOVES Hellmut Wollmann / Stig Montin

S. AGNESE SA117

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 NETWORKS AND NETWORK ANALYSIS IN POLICY Kathryn Oliver / Michele Acuto / Karin Ingold

GEMELLI G108

y52

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30

53 X

MULTISESSION 4

MULTISESSION 4

y54

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 13 / SESSION 2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE POLIS: POLITICAL ENTREPRENEURS, POLICY MAKING, AND DIVERSE CONTEXTS Evangelia Petridou / Lee Miles

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 7 / SESSION 1 GOVERNANCE AND TERRITORY: LAND USE POLICIES AND COMMUNITY NETWORKS IN LATIN AMERICA Juan-Antonio Zornoza / Alberto Giraldo / Norman Simón Rodríguez

TOPIC 13: GENDER AND PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 FEMINIST INSTITUTIONALISM AND GENDER EQUALITY POLICY Jennifer Curtin / Melissa Haussman

TOPIC 14: LOCAL AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 SECURITY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES: MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE IN THE ARCTIC REGION Thierry Rodon / Cecile Pelaudeix / Christopher Alcantara

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 THE NEW POLICY AND POLITICS OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE Carsten Daugbjerg / Peter Feindt

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 PUBLIC SECTOR MODERNIZATION BETWEEN NPM-DRIVEN SHIFTS AND POST-NPM MOVES Hellmut Wollmann / Stig Montin

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 13 / SESSION 1 ON THE ROAD TO PERMISSIVENESS? ANALYZING PATTERNS OF MORALITY POLICY CHANGE Stephan Heichel / Christian Adam / Christoph Knill

NIRONE NI010 GEMELLI G108

TOPIC 16 : SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION GOVERNANCE Ellen van Bueren / Thomas Hoppe

GEMELLI G016

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 THE AIM OF GOVERNANCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ACTORS INSTRUMENTATION AND MODES OF GOVERNANCE Damon Alexander / Jenny Lewis / Helen Sullivan

TOPIC 15: POLITICS, POLICY AND BUSINESS PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 ‘PAYING A FAIR SHARE? ACTIVISM, BUSINESS AND TAX JUSTICE’ Richard Eccleston

S. AGNESE SA015

S. AGNESE SA114 GEMELLI G024 GEMELLI G112

GEMELLI G022 GEMELLI G005

TOPIC 11: DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 6 / SESSION 2 INTERSECTIONALITY BASED POLICY ANALYSIS: INNOVATING AND TRANSFORMING POLICY Olena Hankivsky / Julia Jordan-Zachery

S. AGNESE SA326

TOPIC 9: METHODOLOGIES PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 WHAT METHODOGY TO STUDY POLICY PROCESS ? Philippe Zittoun

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 11 / SESSION 2 POLICY CHANGE AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS CHANGE: ENDS, MEANS, PROCESSES, OUTCOMES Maria Velasco

LANZONE VL1-02/G153

TOPIC 8 : POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 6 / SESSION 3 COMPARING POLICY ADVISORY SYSTEMS Thurid Hustedt / Martin Schulz / Jan Van Damme

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 9 / SESSION 1 THE STATE AT THE LEVEL OF THE STREET: STREET-LEVEL ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH Aurélien Buffat / Evelyn Brodkin / Peter Hupe

GEMELLI G121

S. AGNESE SA325

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 HOW DO DEMOCRACY AND POLICY EVALUATION SPEAK TO EACH OTHER? Fritz Sager / Thomas Saretzki

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 8 / SESSION 2 POLICY LEARNING & POLICY CHANGE: THEORIZING THE RELATION FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES Stéphane Moyson / Peter Scholten / Christopher Weible

S. AGNESE SA112

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 THE BUREAUCRAT AND THE LAW: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION IN FRONT-LINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Federica Infantino / Tobias Eule

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30

S. AGNESE SA222

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 ANALYZING STATE CAPACITY AND PUBLIC POLICY IN LATIN AMERICA THROUGH THE “THREE I” APPROACH Melina de Souza Rocha Lukic / Norma Muñoz / Carla Guerra Tomazini

GEMELLI G135

S. AGNESE SA221

LANZONE VL0-01/G053

GEMELLI G114

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30

55 X

MULTISESSION 5

MULTISESSION 5

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 12 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC POLICY INNOVATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: LESSONS FROM THE DEVELOPING WORLD Wellington Almeida / Paulo Calmon

TOPIC 5: POLICY FORMULATION AND DECISION MAKING PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 PARLIAMENTS IN THE POLICY CYCLE. EXECUTIVE-LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS AS A DETERMINANT FOR POLICY MAKING Sven Siefken / Julia Fleischer

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 4 / SESSION 2 ANALYZING STATE CAPACITY AND PUBLIC POLICY IN LATIN AMERICA THROUGH THE “THREE I” APPROACH Melina de Souza Rocha Lukic / Norma Muñoz / Carla Guerra Tomazini

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 6 / SESSION 2 THE BUREAUCRAT AND THE LAW: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION IN FRONT-LINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Federica Infantino / Tobias Eule

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 POLICY CAPACITY: EMPIRICAL EXPLORATIONS AND CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS MIchael Howlett

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 9 / SESSION 2 THE STATE AT THE LEVEL OF THE STREET: STREET-LEVEL ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH Aurélien Buffat / Evelyn Brodkin / Peter Hupe

TOPIC 11: DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 HYDRAULIC FRACKING FOR SHALE GAS AS AN INTERPRETIVE PROBLEM Jennifer Dodge / Tamara Metze

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 THE AIM OF GOVERNANCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ACTORS INSTRUMENTATION AND MODES OF GOVERNANCE Damon Alexander / Jenny Lewis / Helen Sullivan

GEMELLI G005

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 TRUST, LEGITIMACY AND PUBLIC POLICY EFFECTIVENESS Zsolt Boda / Attila Bartha

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 8 / SESSION 3 POLICY LEARNING & POLICY CHANGE: THEORIZING THE RELATION FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES Stéphane Moyson / Peter Scholten / Christopher Weible

S. AGNESE SA222

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO MULTI-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH: MOVING BEYOND LEGAL COMPLIANCE Eva Thomann / Fritz Sager

GEMELLI G024

S. AGNESE SA221

GEMELLI G122 S. AGNESE SA115

S. AGNESE SA117 GEMELLI G114 LANZONE VL0-01/G053

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 9 / SESSION 1 REGULATING JUDGES: EXPANDING THE HORIZONS Richard Devlin

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 MASS PROTESTS OF NEW MILLENNIA AS A CHALLENGE TO SOCIAL THEORY Nina Belyaeva / Nick Mahony / Giuseppe Mastruzzo

S. AGNESE SA114

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 8 / SESSION 1 HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY IN ASIA: REFORM, OUTCOMES, EQUITY AND ACCESS Darryl Jarvis / Ka Ho Mok

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 13 / SESSION 2 PRIVATE SECTOR AND UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE: EXAMINING EVIDENCE AND DECONSTRUCTING RHETORIC Anuj Kapilashrami / Mohga Kamal-Yanni / Jessica Hamer

NIRONE NI111

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 9 / SESSION 1 POLICY ANALYSIS IN FRANCE Patrick Hassenteufel / Philippe Zittoun / Charlotte Halpern

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 THE DYNAMICS OF REGULATORY CHANGE IN A POST-DEREGULATION WORLD Jeff Worsham / Marc Eisner

S. AGNESE SA015

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 ROUNDTABLE ON NARRATIVES AND THE POLICY PROCESS Elizabeth Shanahan / Claudio Radaelli / Claire Dunlop

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 18 / SESSION 1 POLICY MAKING AT THE CENTER OF GOVERNMENT: CENTERING AND DECENTERING DYNAMICS IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Jonathan Craft / B. Guy Peters

GEMELLI G121

S. AGNESE SA112 LANZONE VL1-03/G151 GEMELLI G113 GEMELLI G115 GEMELLI G135 GEMELLI G134

y56

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 GLOBAL POLICY AND TRANSNATIONAL ADMINISTRATION Diane Stone / Stella Ladi

GEMELLI G022

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45

57 X

MULTISESSION 6

MULTISESSION 5

y58

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / EDUCATION POLICY PANEL 28 / SESSION 1 HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE BETWEEN HISTORICAL ROOTS AND TRANSNATIONAL CONVERGENCE PRESSURES Michael Dobbins / Marta Shaw

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 8 / SESSION 1 THEORIES AND CONCEPTIONS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS BEYOND “POLICY CYCLE” AND “MULTIPLE STREAMS” Michael Boecher / Annette Toeller

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 10 / SESSION 1 POLICY MAKING BETWEEN CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES: AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE Riccardo Pelizzo / Abel Kinyondo

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 20 / SESSION 1 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE POLITICS OF POLICYMAKING Steven Smith

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 MASS PROTESTS OF NEW MILLENNIA AS A CHALLENGE TO SOCIAL THEORY Nina Belyaeva / Nick Mahony / Giuseppe Mastruzzo

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO MULTI-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH: MOVING BEYOND LEGAL COMPLIANCE Eva Thomann / Fritz Sager

GEMELLI G122 S. AGNESE SA115 GEMELLI G108

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 5 / SESSION 1 USING TRADITIONAL POLICY THEORIES AND CONCEPTS IN UNTRADITIONAL WAYS Christopher Weible / Paul Cairney

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 4 / SESSION 2 THE DYNAMICS OF REGULATORY CHANGE IN A POST-DEREGULATION WORLD Jeff Worsham / Marc Eisner

S. AGNESE SA015

GEMELLI G005 S. AGNESE SA112 GEMELLI G022 NIRONE NI010

GEMELLI G016 GEMELLI G112

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 THEORISING THE PROCESS OF POLICY Hal Colebatch

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 18 / SESSION 2 POLICY MAKING AT THE CENTER OF GOVERNMENT: CENTERING AND DECENTERING DYNAMICS IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Jonathan Craft / B. Guy Peters

S. AGNESE SA221

TOPIC 16: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 3 ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION GOVERNANCE Ellen van Bueren / Thomas Hoppe

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 20 / SESSION 1 LEARNING LESSONS FROM EBOLA: POLICY MAKING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH Patrick Fafard

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 GLOBAL POLICY AND TRANSNATIONAL ADMINISTRATION Diane Stone / Stella Ladi

GEMELLI G016

TOPIC 15: POLITICS, POLICY AND BUSINESS PANEL 5 / SESSION 1 FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN ‘PUBLIC’ AND ‘PRIVATE’ IN PUBLIC POLICY PRACTICE Petr Witz / Robert Ågren

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 18 / SESSION 1 POLICY INNOVATIONS TO REDUCE HEALTH INEQUALITIES IN THE BRICS COUNTRIES Jeni Vaitsman / Hanna Kociemska

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 SEQUENCING IN PUBLIC POLICY Carsten Daugbjerg / Grace Skogstad

GEMELLI G113

TOPIC 15: POLITICS, POLICY AND BUSINESS PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 ‘PAYING A FAIR SHARE? ACTIVISM, BUSINESS AND TAX JUSTICE’ Richard Eccleston

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 14 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC POLICIES IN POST-CONFLICT SCENARIOS Andres Macias / Carlos Soto

LANZONE VL2-05/G251

TOPIC 13: GENDER AND PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 FEMINIST INSTITUTIONALISM AND GENDER EQUALITY POLICY Jennifer Curtin / Melissa Haussman

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 2 / SESSION 3 THE NEW POLICY AND POLITICS OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE Carsten Daugbjerg / Peter Feindt

LANZONE VL2-04/G253

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 MODES OF GOVERNANCE: ASIA IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Eduardo Araral

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30

S. AGNESE SA223

GEMELLI G108

S. AGNESE SA326

NIRONE NI010

LANZONE VL1-02/G153

S. AGNESE SA325

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45

59 X

MULTISESSION 6

MULTISESSION 6

y60

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 11 / SESSION 1 HOW TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT RECENT MOBILITY CHANGES IN TRANSPORT POLICY? Patricia Lejoux / Nathalie Ortar / Stephanie Souche

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 19 / SESSION 1 FRAGMENTATION OR METAGOVERNANCE? THE FUTURE OF HEALTH CARE Katherine Fierlbeck / Scott Greer

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 21 / SESSION 1 FROM EVIDENCE TO POLICY AND BACK AGAIN: THE EVIDENCE-HEALTH POLICY PRAXIS Margaret Kelahe / Daniel Weinstock

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / EDUCATION POLICY PANEL 28 / SESSION 2 HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE BETWEEN HISTORICAL ROOTS AND TRANSNATIONAL CONVERGENCE PRESSURES Michael Dobbins / Marta Shaw

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / SECURITY PANEL 32 / SESSION 1 POLICING AND SECURITY: NEW CHALLENGES FOR POLICY-MAKING AND ACCOUNTABILITY Hartmut Aden / Jasmin Röllgen / Oldrich Bures

GEMELLI G134 S. AGNESE SA223

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / EDUCATION POLICY PANEL 27 / SESSION 1 GOVERNANCE OF KNOWLEDGE POLICIES Jens Jungblut / Meng Hsuan Chou / Pauline Ravinet

LANZONE VL0-01/G053

S. AGNESE SA325

GEMELLI G115 GEMELLI G112

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 16 / SESSION 1 HEALTH POLICY: IMPLICATIONS OF ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY, SCIENCE AND MEDICINE Penny Gleeson

LANZONE VL2-05/G251

TOPIC 17: INTERNET AND POLICY PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC POLICY MANAGEMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES Marco Ruediger

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 15 / SESSION 1 HEALTH SYSTEMS IN TRANSITION: PROBLEMATIC POLITICS OF RAISING REVENUE AND DELIVERING HEALTH CARE Jim Bjorkman

LANZONE VL2-04/G253

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 2 / SESSION 3 THE AIM OF GOVERNANCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ACTORS INSTRUMENTATION AND MODES OF GOVERNANCE Damon Alexander / Jenny Lewis / Helen Sullivan

TOPIC 15: POLITICS, POLICY AND BUSINESS PANEL 5 / SESSION 2 FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN ‘PUBLIC’ AND ‘PRIVATE’ IN PUBLIC POLICY PRACTICE Petr Witz / Robert Ågren

LANZONE VL1-03/G151

TOPIC 11: DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 4 / SESSION 2 HYDRAULIC FRACKING FOR SHALE GAS AS AN INTERPRETIVE PROBLEM Jennifer Dodge / Tamara Metze

GEMELLI G121

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC POLICY AND THE GLOBAL-LOCAL DILEMMA Tim Legrand / Hélène Caune / Angie Gago

TOPIC 13: GENDER AND PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 COMPARATIVE CONSIDERATIONS ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS Kieke Okma

S. AGNESE SA326

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 POLICY CAPACITY: EMPIRICAL EXPLORATIONS AND CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS MIchael Howlett

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 4 / SESSION 2 MODES OF GOVERNANCE: ASIA IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Eduardo Araral

LANZONE VL1-02/G153

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 TRUST, LEGITIMACY AND PUBLIC POLICY EFFECTIVENESS Zsolt Boda / Attila Bartha

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30

GEMELLI G114

GEMELLI G024

S. AGNESE SA222

NIRONE NI111

S. AGNESE SA114

S. AGNESE SA117

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 22 / SESSION 1 NEW MODELS IN PRIMARY CARE. AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON Demartini Maria Chiara / Simon Gregory

61 X

MULTISESSION 7

MULTISESSION 7

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 3 / SESSION 3 MASS PROTESTS OF NEW MILLENNIA AS A CHALLENGE TO SOCIAL THEORY Nina Belyaeva / Nick Mahony / Giuseppe Mastruzzo

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 7 / SESSION 1 THE INTERACTION OF RESEARCH AND POLICY - POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS SHAPING THE USE OF POLICY RELEVANT EVIDENCE Justin Parkhurst / Kathryn Oliver

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 19 / SESSION 1 POLICY MAKING ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF GOVERNMENT Evelyn Brodkin / Peter Hupe / Aurélien Buffat

TOPIC 11: DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 5 / SESSION 1 MEDIA AND POLICY Luigi Bobbio / Joan Subirats

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 9 / SESSION 1 MULTI-SCALARITY AND TRANSNATIONAL POLICY-MAKING Richard R Weiner

TOPIC 15: POLITICS, POLICY AND BUSINESS PANEL 5 / SESSION 3 FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN ‘PUBLIC’ AND ‘PRIVATE’ IN PUBLIC POLICY PRACTICE Petr Witz / Robert Ågren

TOPIC 16: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 MODELING, SIMULATION, SCENARIZATION AND ALGORITHMS IN PUBLIC POLICY Stefan Aykut / Bilel Benbouzid

S. AGNESE SA223 S. AGNESE SA117

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 5 / SESSION 1 EUROPEAN ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE Frans K.M. Van Nispen

S. AGNESE SA326

S. AGNESE SA221 NIRONE NI010 S. AGNESE SA115

GEMELLI G122 GEMELLI G113

TOPIC 7: POLICY DESIGN PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 CO-PRODUCTION AS A POLICY TOOL: DESIGN IMPEDIMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES MIchael Howlett

GEMELLI G114

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 POLICY ANALYSIS IN MEXICO Mauricio Dussauge / Joseluis Mendez

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 5 / SESSION 1 PROSTITUTION POLICY AND SEX WORK GOVERNANCE – DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION Genevieve Fuji Johnson / Hendrik Wagenaar / Leslie Jeffrey

TOPIC 11 : DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 8 / SESSION 1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS MEETING CRITICAL POLICY STUDIES Anna Durnova

S. AGNESE SA222

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 11 / SESSION 1 POLICY AND POLITICS IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: ADVANCING THEORIES OF CONTENTIOUS POLICY ISSUES Tanya Heikkila / Christopher Weible

TOPIC 2 : COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 21 / SESSION 1 ROUNDTABLE : GLOBAL POLICY CONVERGENCE? NEW CHALLENGES FOR COMPARATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS METHODS Iris Geva-May

TOPIC 6: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PANEL 2 / SESSION 3 INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO MULTI-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH: MOVING BEYOND LEGAL COMPLIANCE Eva Thomann / Fritz Sager

S. AGNESE SA112

NIRONE NI111 S. AGNESE SA114

y62

TOPIC 1 : POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 8 / SESSION 2 THEORIES AND CONCEPTIONS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS BEYOND “POLICY CYCLE” AND “MULTIPLE STREAMS” Michael Boecher / Annette Toeller

GEMELLI G024

TOPIC 2 : COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 10 / SESSION 2 POLICY MAKING BETWEEN CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES: AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE Riccardo Pelizzo / Abel Kinyondo

GEMELLI G135

GEMELLI G022

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 4 / SESSION 2 THEORISING THE PROCESS OF POLICY Hal Colebatch

S. AGNESE SA015

GEMELLI G005

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 7 / SESSION 1 COMPARING HORIZONTAL COORDINATION OF POLICY SECTORS Philipp Trein / Tanja Klenk

GEMELLI G016

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 SEQUENCING IN PUBLIC POLICY Carsten Daugbjerg / Grace Skogstad

S. AGNESE SA325

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45

63 X

MULTISESSION 8

MULTISESSION 7

y64

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 20 / SESSION 1 POLICY TRANSFER: MICRO-MECHANICS AND MACRO-EFFECTS: INTERNATIONAL ACTORS Magdaléna Hadjiisky / Leslie Pal

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 5 / SESSION 2 PROSTITUTION POLICY AND SEX WORK GOVERNANCE - DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION Genevieve Fuji Johnson / Hendrik Wagenaar / Leslie Jeffrey

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 GOVERNMENTS’ POLICY AGENDA AND RESPONSIVENESS IN TIMES OF CRISIS Ana Belchior / Emmanouil Tsatsanis

TOPIC 7: POLICY DESIGN PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 CO-PRODUCTION AS A POLICY TOOL: DESIGN IMPEDIMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES MIchael Howlett

GEMELLI G112 S. AGNESE SA325 GEMELLI G115

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 7 / SESSION 2 COMPARING HORIZONTAL COORDINATION OF POLICY SECTORS Philipp Trein / Tanja Klenk

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 19 / SESSION 1 DEPOLITICIZATION & CRISIS: CONTINGENCY AND CONTESTATION IN THE FACE OF POLICY FAILURE Adam Standring / Catherine Moury

S. AGNESE SA112

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 POLICY ANALYSIS IN MEXICO Mauricio Dussauge / Joseluis Mendez

NIRONE NI010

GEMELLI G022 NIRONE NI111

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 16 / SESSION 1 ACTIVE LABOUR MARKET POLICIES AND THE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT WELFARE STATE: THE YOUTH GUARANTEE PROGRAMS IN EUROPE Patrik Vesan / Paolo Roberto Graziano

S. AGNESE SA114

LANZONE VL2-05/G251 LANZONE VL2-04/G253

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 34 / SESSION 1 URBAN REGENERATION POLICIES IN EUROPE: THEORY AND PRACTICE Maria Angeles Huete García / Moneyba González Medina

TOPIC 1 : POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 11 / SESSION 2 POLICY AND POLITICS IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: ADVANCING THEORIES OF CONTENTIOUS POLICY ISSUES Tanya Heikkila / Christopher Weible

GEMELLI G122

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 16 / SESSION 2 HEALTH POLICY: IMPLICATIONS OF ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY, SCIENCE AND MEDICINE Penny Gleeson

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / SECURITY PANEL 32 / SESSION 2 POLICING AND SECURITY: NEW CHALLENGES FOR POLICY-MAKING AND ACCOUNTABILITY Hartmut Aden / Jasmin Röllgen / Oldrich Bures

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 15 / SESSION 2 THE POLICY OF INSTITUTIONAL REFORM Martino Mazzoleni / Nicola Pasini

GEMELLI G016

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 15 / SESSION 2 HEALTH SYSTEMS IN TRANSITION: PROBLEMATIC POLITICS OF RAISING REVENUE AND DELIVERING HEALTH CARE Jim Bjorkman

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / EDUCATION POLICY PANEL 27 / SESSION 2 GOVERNANCE OF KNOWLEDGE POLICIES Jens Jungblut / Meng Hsuan Chou / Pauline Ravinet

TOPIC 1 : POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 4 / SESSION 3 THEORISING THE PROCESS OF POLICY Hal Colebatch

GEMELLI G135

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 5 / SESSION 1 INSTITUTIONS, IDEAS, AND NETWORKS IN CULTURAL POLICY Kate Mattocks / Lisa Marx

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 21 / SESSION 2 FROM EVIDENCE TO POLICY AND BACK AGAIN: THE EVIDENCE-HEALTH POLICY PRAXIS Margaret Kelaher / Daniel Weinstock

GEMELLI G134

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 INNOVATIONS IN TEACHING PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: WHAT ARE THEY AND DO THEY WORK? Eduardo Araral / M Ramesh

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 19 / SESSION 2 FRAGMENTATION OR METAGOVERNANCE? THE FUTURE OF HEALTH CARE Katherine Fierlbeck / Scott Greer

LANZONE VL0-01/G053

TOPIC 17: INTERNET AND POLICY PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 PUBLIC POLICY MANAGEMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES Marco Ruediger

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45

LANZONE VL1-03/G151

GEMELLI G112

GEMELLI G115

GEMELLI G108

GEMELLI G121

LANZONE VL1-02/G153

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45

65 X

MULTISESSION 8

MULTISESSION 8

y66

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 19 / SESSION 2 POLICY MAKING ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF GOVERNMENT Evelyn Brodkin / Peter Hupe / Aurélien Buffat

TOPIC 15: POLITICS, POLICY AND BUSINESS PANEL 6 / SESSION 1 COLLABORATING AND PARTNERING FOR PUBLIC POLICY ACTION Carsten Greve / Helen Sullivan

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 8 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC POLICY IN TURKEY. MULTIPLE FACES OF NEOLIBERAL POLICIES IN TURKEY: INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SECTORIAL APPROACHES, FIELDS AND METHODS Isil Erdinc / Ceren Ark / Muge Neda Altinoklu

TOPIC 18 : SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS /SECURITY PANEL 32 / SESSION 3 POLICING AND SECURITY: NEW CHALLENGES FOR POLICY-MAKING AND ACCOUNTABILITY Hartmut Aden / Jasmin Röllgen / Oldrich Bures

GEMELLI G134 S. AGNESE SA015

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 5 / SESSION 2 INSTITUTIONS, IDEAS, AND NETWORKS IN CULTURAL POLICY Kate Mattocks / Lisa Marx

GEMELLI G114 S. AGNESE SA221

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / SOCIAL POLICY PANEL 29 / SESSION 1 WORLD INEQUALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY: WHAT DO WE KNOW AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE Wenjie Zhang / Luigi Pasinetti / James Galbraith

GEMELLI G108

GEMELLI G024 S. AGNESE SA223

TOPIC 17: INTERNET AND POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 BIG DATA, DATA SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY Helen Margetts

LANZONE VL0-01/G053

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 10 / SESSION 1 RE-FRAMING INDUSTRIAL POLICY IN TIME OF CRISIS Maria Tullia Galanti - Marco Di Giulio

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / EDUCATION POLICY PANEL 27 / SESSION 3 GOVERNANCE OF KNOWLEDGE POLICIES Jens Jungblut / Meng Hsuan Chou / Pauline Ravinet

S. AGNESE SA326

TOPIC 12 : GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 9 / SESSION 2 MULTI-SCALARITY AND TRANSNATIONAL POLICY-MAKING Richard R Weiner

TOPIC 16: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY PANEL 1 / SESSION 2 MODELING, SIMULATION, SCENARIZATION AND ALGORITHMS IN PUBLIC POLICY Stefan Aykut / Bilel Benbouzid

LANZONE VL1-03/G153

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 9 / SESSION 1 DOES REGULATION MATTER? EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF REGULATORY POLICIES Christoph Knill / Steffen Hurka / Christian Adam

TOPIC 12: GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS PANEL 5 / SESSION 2 EUROPEAN ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE Frans K.M. van Nispen

S. AGNESE SA117

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 7 / SESSION 2 THE INTERACTION OF RESEARCH AND POLICY - POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS SHAPING THE USE OF POLICY RELEVANT EVIDENCE Justin Parkhurst / Kathryn Oliver

TOPIC 11 : DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 3 / SESSION 1 DISCOURSES IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY – LESSONS LEARNT AND NEW PERSPECTIVES Peter Feindt / Georg Winkel / Sina Leipold

GEMELLI G121

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 MECHANISMS FOR THE POLICY SCIENCES: THEORIES, METHODS AND APPLICATIONS Simone Busetti / Erica Melloni

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45

GEMELLI G113

S. AGNESE SA222

GEMELLI G005

S. AGNESE SA115

LANZONE VL1-03/G151

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALTH POLICY PANEL 17 / SESSION 1 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN PUBLIC POLICY: PROMISE AND PITFALLS Keith Syrett

67 X

MULTISESSION 9

MULTISESSION 9

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 10 / SESSION 1 GOVERNING WELFARE STATE REFORMS IN TIMES OF CRISIS: THE ROLE OF EXPERTISE AND POLICY KNOWLEDGE Sonja Blum / Holger Strassheim

TOPIC 11: DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 3 / SESSION 2 DISCOURSES IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY - LESSONS LEARNT AND NEW PERSPECTIVES Peter Feindt / Georg Winkel / Sina Leipold

TOPIC 11: DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH PANEL 7 / SESSION 1 REFLEXIVITY, NORMALITY AND (DE) ROUTINIZATION Kathrin Braun / Anne Loeber

TOPIC 14: LOCAL AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 CONFLICT IN FEDERAL SYSTEMS IN PARA-DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Rajeev Venugopal

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 1 / SESSION 1 PUBLIC POLICIES AND THE PUBLIC Marleen Brans

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 5 / SESSION 3 INSTITUTIONS, IDEAS, AND NETWORKS IN CULTURAL POLICY Kate Mattocks / Lisa Marx

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 7 / SESSION 1 ACCOUNTING FOR POLITICS AND THE POLITICS OF ACCOUNTING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR Mariafrancesca Sicilia / Eugenio Anessi Pessina / Ileana Steccolini

S. AGNESE SA221

TOPIC 17: INTERNET AND POLICY PANEL 2 / SESSION 2 BIG DATA, DATA SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY Helen Margetts

GEMELLI G115

TOPIC 10: PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS PANEL 2 / SESSION 1 PERSPECTIVES AND PRACTICES OF STATE EXECUTIVES AND POLICY ELITES: COMPARATIVE UNDERSTANDINGS Bryan Evans

TOPIC 15: POLITICS, POLICY AND BUSINESS PANEL 4 / SESSION 1 CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY, BUSINESS AND DEVELOPMENT Nirvia Ravena de Sousa / Flavio Gaitán

GEMELLI G108

LANZONE VL1-02/G153 LANZONE VL0-01/G053 GEMELLI G024

S. AGNESE SA112 LANZONE VL1-03/G151 S. AGNESE SA223

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 12 / SESSION 1 IS IT RESEARCH “FOR” POLICY OR RESEARCH “OF” POLICY? Alessandro Colombo

GEMELLI G112

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 9 / SESSION 2 DOES REGULATION MATTER? EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF REGULATORY POLICIES Christoph Knill / Steffen Hurka / Christian Adam

GEMELLI G016

TOPIC 3: POLICY AND POLITICS PANEL 16 / SESSION 2 ACTIVE LABOUR MARKET POLICIES AND THE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT WELFARE STATE: THE YOUTH GUARANTEE PROGRAMS IN EUROPE Patrik Vesan / Paolo Roberto Graziano

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 5 / SESSION 1 THINK TANKS AND POLICY ADVISORY SYSTEMS Luca Barani / Xavier Carpentier Tanguy / Mattia Diletti

GEMELLI G135

S. AGNESE SA325

y68

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 14 / SESSION 1 COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS: THEIR RELATIONSHIP AND FRUITFUL COOPERATION Scott Greer / Margitta Mätzke

TOPIC 8: POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION PANEL 4 / SESSION 2 MECHANISMS FOR THE POLICY SCIENCES: THEORIES, METHODS AND APPLICATIONS Simone Busetti / Erica Melloni

GEMELLI G005

GEMELLI G122

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 7 /SESSION 3 COMPARING HORIZONTAL COORDINATION OF POLICY SECTORS Philipp Trein / Tanja Klenk

TOPIC 4: PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING PANEL 4 / SESSION 2 GOVERNMENTS’ POLICY AGENDA AND RESPONSIVENESS IN TIMES OF CRISIS Ana Belchior / Emmanouil Tsatsanis

S. AGNESE SA222

GEMELLI G022 S. AGNESE SA114

TOPIC 2: COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY PANEL 1 / SESSION 3 POLICY ANALYSIS IN MEXICO Mauricio Dussauge / Joseluis Mendez

S. AGNESE SA117

TOPIC 1: POLICY PROCESS THEORIES PANEL 7 / SESSION 1 THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Daniel Nohrstedt

GEMELLI G134

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30

69 X

MULTISESSION 9

GEMELLI G114

LANZONE VL2-04/G253

y70

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / SOCIAL POLICY PANEL 29 / SESSION 2 WORLD INEQUALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY: WHAT DO WE KNOW AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE Wenjie Zhang / Luigi Pasinetti / James Galbraith

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 9 / SESSION 1 POLICY PROCESS THEORIES IN URBAN SYSTEMS RESEARCH Antje Witting

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / SECURITY PANEL 31 / SESSION 1 PREVENTING THE INFILTRATION OF ORGANISED CRIME INTO THE LEGITIMATE ECONOMY, BETWEEN RESEARCH CHALLENGES AND POLICY TOOLS Ernesto Savona

S. AGNESE SA015

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS PANEL 8 / SESSION 2 PUBLIC POLICY IN TURKEY. MULTIPLE FACES OF NEOLIBERAL POLICIES IN TURKEY: INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SECTORIAL APPROACHES, FIELDS AND METHODS Isil Erdinc / Ceren Ark / Muge Neda Altinoklu

GEMELLI G113

GEMELLI G121

S. AGNESE SA326

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / HEALT POLICY PANEL 21 / SESSION 3 FROM EVIDENCE TO POLICY AND BACK AGAIN: THE EVIDENCE-HEALTH POLICY PRAXIS Margaret Kelaher / Daniel Weinstock

TOPIC 18: SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS / ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PANEL 23 / SESSION 1 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY POLICIES AND NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE Evren Tok

71 X

PANELS DETAILS

y 72

73 X

CHAIRS

Australian National University

yDaniela Piana, University of Bologna

SEQUENCING IN PUBLIC POLICY

y Policy scholars are increasingly applying a temporal perspective to

explain policy stability and change. Temporal analysis has a strong focus on the timing and sequence of policy events in order to identify the dynamics of policy making. The notion of path dependency is often used to explain policy trajectories. Policy stability is explained by analysing the historical sequence of policy events in order to establish the self-reinforcing mechanisms maintaining the policy path. As the sequence of events develops over time, driven by internal dynamics, policy development may increasingly be out of synch with the broader political or institutional context. The result is to trigger a critical juncture, enabling rapid and radical policy change. In contrast to this path dependency/punctuated equilibrium model of policy development and change, recent theoretical developments suggest that policy trajectories tend to be characterised by gradual policy transformation. This second literature has focused on mapping different types of gradual change and identifying the dynamics behind reform processes. An alternative, but related, approach to explaining gradual policy evolution over time is reactive, or process, sequencing. It focuses on the temporal and causal connections between policy events which are produced by reactions and counter-reactions to previous events in the sequence that cause subsequent policy events. Reactive, or process, sequencing focuses on the way in which policy evolves without assuming that the sequence would be predetermined by path dependency. This panel welcomes papers which explore the recent theoretical, methodological and empirical developments in temporal policy analysis—either within the path dependency or reactive sequence formulation--with the aim of improving our understanding of policy stability, change and controversies from a temporal perspective.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

-

-

DISCUSSANTS -

Friday, July 3rd - 8.30/10.30 (Gemelli G005) Grace Skogstad, University of Toronto Frode Veggeland, University of Oslo

Complex Policy Trajectories in Risk Domains: Nuclear Power in Canada, Germany and Japan Adrian Rinscheid, University of St.Gallen Burkard Eberlein, York University, Schulich School of Business Volker Schneider, University of Konstanz Understanding the changes to the Irish social partnership policy after 2008 John Hogan, Dublin Institute of Technology Understanding policy instrumentation through process sequencing: insights from the case of medical genetics governance in Quebec Marie-Andree Paquette, Ecole nationale d’administration publique (ENAP) Lise Lamothe, University of Montreal Daniel Reinharz, Laval University When small policy changes accumulate: policy sequences in the case of air pollution policy in Israel Ehud Segal, Hebrew University Spotting sequences in policy evolution: using process tracing to identify self-reinforcing and reactive effects over time Carsten Daugbjerg, Crawford School, Australian National University Adrian Kay, The Australian National University Explaining the Religious Engagement Agenda in Transatlantic Foreign Policies Sarah Wolff, Queen Mary University

ySession 2

-

y 74

yCarsten Daugbjerg, Crawford School,

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 01 - POLICY PROCESS THEORIES

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G005) Carsten Daugbjerg, Crawford School, Australian National University Klaus H Goetz, University of Munich

Tourism Policy events and underlying narrative framework: process and sequences. Maria Velasco, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Sequencing in US and EU Biofuels Policies Grace Skogstad, University of Toronto Tales of the Unexpected: The historical dynamics of EU’s health policies Frode Veggeland, University of Oslo Martin Stangborli Time, University of Oslo From Punctuated Equilibrium towards Political Cycles? Contestation, Politicization and Change in EU Budgeting Ronny Patz, LMU München Klaus H Goetz, University of Munich Sequences in health policy reform: reinforcement and reaction in universal health insurance Adrian Kay, The Australian National University

75 X

y Polycentric governance has been embedded into a coherent theory

throughout the sixties and seventies by contributions that laid the foundations of the Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Despite recent renewed interest in polycentricity, convenors of this panel identified an important research gap - the social foundations of the emergence of polycentric governance. With foundations we specifically refer to the role of characteristics of social problems (e.g. characteristics of goods provided) and constitutional (and meta-constitutional) rules –in-use, on the basis of which operational polycentric governance would be founded. The panel addresses this gap in two sessions. The first session treats the conceptual and methodological foundation for addressing a) constitutional conditions and b) characteristics of social problems in regard to their effect on polycentric governance. Papers are welcomed that engage with conceptualising either foundational category underlying polycentric governance and the mechanisms and social processes at work in structuring governance. For example, the role of either weak vs. strong states, shared cultural understandings, provision of public or private goods, formal and informal constitutional level practices or specific scale-specific constraints on self-organisation of collective decision units could be addressed. While contributions are expected to be conceptual in nature, empirical illustrations can cover diverse fields. The second session specifically aims to build on recent advances in our understanding of polycentric water governance. Contributions will be welcomed that empirically illustrate the role of the foundations of polycentric governance for the way water governance is organized, for the way it evolves and performs. Questions could address, for example, the role of perceptions about the specific features of ecological and technical systems in the water governance is structured, the role of the constitutionally codified state structure, the role of changes in perceived uncertainties about social-ecological system behaviour for the way water governance evolves and performs.

y 76

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL2-04/G253) Claudia Pahl-Wostl, University of Osnabrueck Edella Schlager, University of Arizona

Cultural Theory & Organizational Institutions in Collaborative Watershed Governance Tom Koontz, University of Washington - Tacoma Polycentric Governance and Management in a Large Urban Watershed Bill Blomquist, IUPUI Examining the effect of type of water on degree of polycentricity Raul Pacheco-Vega, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)

y Session 2 -

yAndreas Thiel, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin yBill Blomquist, IUPUI yAnas Malik, Xavier University

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 02

GROUNDING POLYCENTRIC GOVERNANCE: CONSTITUTIONAL RULES, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND THEIR ILLUSTRATION IN WATER MANAGEMENT

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Via Lanzone VL2-04/ G253) Claudia Pahl-Wostl, University of Osnabrueck Edella Schlager, University of Arizona

Understanding multi-level water governance by integrating institutional analysis and social simulation Amineh Ghorbani, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology Polycentricity as an adaptive response to social and ecological conditions in Kenyan water governance Elizabeth Baldwin, Indiana University Paul McCord, Indiana University Multilevel water governance and the art of synchronization Jitske van Popering-Verkerk, Erasmus University of Rotterdam Arwin van Buuren, Erasmus University Rotterdam Geert Teisman, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Public Administration Nine Dragons Stirring up the River: Conceptualizing the One Resource Two Systems Phenomenon in Transboundary Environmental Management Kris Hartley, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

77 X

y This panel extends the debate on global policy processes and transna-

tional administration that started in the 1st ICPP conference in Grenoble and which provided the momentum behind a symposium of papers that will appear in Public Administration. The second conference we hope will fuel a new publication currently in negotiation with Oxford University Press.We draw upon policy studies and public administration scholarship to ask if there are signs of global public policy and transnational administration emerging which need to be understood through the lens of this scholarship and not only that of global governance and international relations. Would a change in the lens signify new findings and insights in the changing face of public administration and public policies processes globally? In this panel we ask policy and public administration scholars to focus on and analyse policy power, decision-making processes and implementing authority that operates above and beyond the state and is executed by transnational policy actors. Whilst there are notable exceptions, public policy and public administration studies have tended to undertake analysis of the capacity of public sector hierarchies to globalise national policies rather than to ask if there is transnational policy-making and administration above and beyond the state. We seek conceptually informed papers that identify and interrogate (i) global policy processes, (ii) the constitution, character and effectiveness of global programs and partnerships, (iii) the emergence and nature of transnational public administration. The co-chairs of this panel will not be accepting papers with a specific focus on European public policy or other regional policy processes in order to encourage a discussion of the global, inter-regional or transnational levels of policy and administration. However, papers that address the transnational policy initiatives of regional organisations and the way they feed in to global public policies will be considered.

y 78

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA112) Claire Dunlop, University of Exeter

The emergence of ‘global actors’: strategies at stake and underlying effects Deborah Alimi, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne Supra-State Public Administration: Conceptualising Security Policy Networks of the Anglosphere Tim Legrand, National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy Rethinking Global Environmental Politics: From Global Governance to Transnational Neopluralism Philip G Cerny, University of Manchester The Transnational Politics of EU Budget Support Instrumentation Sarah Wolff, Queen Mary University Global Public Policy: does the new venue for transnational tobacco control challenge the old way of doing things? Paul Cairney, University of Stirling Donley Studlar, University of Strathclyde

ySession 2 -

yDiane Stone, Murdoch University yStella Ladi, Queen Mary University of London

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 03

GLOBAL POLICY AND TRANSNATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA112) Richard Higgott, University of Warwick

Global Public Policy and Transnational Administration Stella Ladi, Queen Mary University of London Diane Stone, Murdoch University Stella Ladi, Queen Mary, University of London The uses of international law and the transformations of division of administrative labour: the institutionalization of IAEA’s nuclear safeguards system. Mailys Mangin, University Lille 2 (CERAPS) Transnational policy-making and internatonal norms: the implementation of the Convention on diversity of cultural expressions Antonio Vlassis, Université de Liège Getting Networks to Work: International Politics, Networked Bureaucracies and the Role of Management Alexander Gaus, University of Potsdam An International Civil Servant Agenda for Public Administration Kim Moloney, University of Miami

79 X

CHAIR

y Theoretical approaches to the process through which policy is gene-

ySession 1

rated have been brought together and catalogued in a number of ways, notably the successive editions of Paul Sabatier’s Theories of the Policy Process and the periodic survey articles in the Policy Studies Journal. This panel aims not simply to repeat these exercises, but rather, to think about the way in which the policy process is theorised, focusing on the ‘cartography’ of policy: how observers generalise and systematise practice, what are seen as the key phenomena, what evidence is gathered and how is it used, and how do the different analytic approaches relate to one another, and to the inherent tensions in the policy process – between choice and structuring, direction and consensus-building, and between the pursuit of specific goals and the continuing management of the problematic. We are also interested in how practitioners – in government and elsewhere - theorise the process, and how their theorising relates to that of the academic observers. We invite papers that address any aspect of this problematique, particularly those concerned with • • • •

how the activity of policy is framed as a process the place of ‘government’ and ‘non-government’ in the framing the tension between choice and structure expertise and the construction of meaning

This panel arises from an invitation from a publisher to put together a handbook on the policy process; many of the chapter authors will be giving papers (and will get priority if choices have to be made), but all interested are invited to submit proposals

y 80

DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

DISCUSSANT

-

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G022) Nick Turnbull, University of Manchester

Thirty Years of Instrument Research: What Have We Learned and Where are We Going MIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University Problematization David Dery, Hebrew Univeristy of Jerusalem Connective Policy Analysis Henrik Paul Bang, IGPA Learning in the Transfer Process? David Dolowitz, University of Liverpool

ySession 3 -

Thursday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G022) Robert Hoppe, University of Twente

Policy as ordering through documents Michal Sedlacko, University of Applied Sciences FH Campus Wien, Public Management Introducing Societal Innovation to Policy Research Franz Fueg, leibniz-Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning (IRS) Mapping the policy process Hal Colebatch, UNSW Australia Policy as (mere) problem-solving Nick Turnbull, University of Manchester Stasis or change? John Grin, University of Amsterdam

ySession 2 -

yHal Colebatch, UNSW Australia

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 04

THEORISING THE PROCESS OF POLICY

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G022) Hal Colebatch, UNSW Australia

The policy process as transition & evolution Anne Loeber, University of Amsterdam Social media and the policy process Arthur Edwards, Dept. Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam Policy theories relying on socioeconomic characteristics Bill Blomquist, IUPUI Policy as Practice Koen Bartels, Bangor University Utilising policy frameworks in an integrated fashion to more effectively analyse the development process Christopher Taylor, University of Melbourne Helen Jordan, The University of Melbourne

81 X

y For several decades, one of the defining features to the study of public policy has been the emergence and development of policy process theories. Samples of these theories include the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), punctuated equilibrium theory (PET), multiple streams (MS), social construction theory (SCT), institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework, and others. Similarly, public policy scholarly consists of concepts that comprise its theories and that are used in research (such as ideas, networks, institutions, etc.). An emerging challenge with the growth of public policy scholarship is that many of the traditional theories and concepts are being applied in ways that were not originally imagined by their creators. This panel seeks to explore strategies and difficulties of using traditional policy theories and concepts in untraditional ways. This may include applications that somehow apply a given theory in an uncommon way for that theory, which may include applications outside of North America or Western Europe, applications at different scales (individual to international), applications using different methodologies, and applications in atypical substantive areas. It may also include challenges in applying concepts in different contexts, theories, and empirical research. The main point of this panel is to focus on the challenges in applying traditional theories and concepts in untraditional ways. Questions to address should include boundaries and scope of public policy theories and concepts.

y 82

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

yHal Colebatch, UNSW Australia

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Nirone NI010) Jale Tosun, Heidelberg University

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 05

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 05

USING TRADITIONAL POLICY THEORIES AND CONCEPTS IN UNTRADITIONAL WAYS

Seeing South Korean Policy Processes through the Lens of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: A Comprehensive Review Christopher Weible, University of Colorado Denver Policy learning, fast and slow: healthcare policy change in two post-communist countries Tamara Popic, European University Institute Coalition Opportunity Structures and Policy Change: A Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Facility Siting Efforts Kuhika Gupta, University of Oklahoma Joe Ripberger, University of Oklahoma Governing Garbage? An Application of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to understanding conflict and collaboration dynamics between municipal governments and informal waste pickers Raul Pacheco-Vega, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) Policy Theory Beyond ‘the West’: Global and non-Western Applications Paul Cairney, University of Stirling

83 X

y In the last decade, there has been a growing recognition of the need

to understand the role and power of narratives in the policy process. Notably, within this subset of scholars who share a passion for this area of research and writing, narrative scholars also engender pluralistic perspectives that reside at multiple places on the ontological and epistemological continua. The goal of this Roundtable on Narratives and the Policy Process is to engage a macro-level discussion about the role of narratives from our multiple perspectives. The participants will engage in a discussion of covering such topics as (a) assumptions of how narratives operate in policy decision making, (b) definitions of what is a narrative, (c) methods of analysis or understanding, (d) examples of in praxis. Scholars involved in our roundtable discussion are: Claudio Radaelli and Claire Dunlop (overview of perspectives and methods); Frank Fischer (interpretivist/critical theory); Anna Durnova (emotions/affect and narratives); Philip Leifeld and Karen Ingold (discourse and network analysis); Elizabeth Shanahan and Michael Jones (Narrative Policy Framework).

y 84

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

yElizabeth Shanahan, Montana State University yClaudio Radaelli, University of Exeter yClaire Dunlop, University of Exeter

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Lanzone VL1-03/G151) Elizabeth Shanahan, Montana State University Claudio Radaelli, University of Exeter

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 06

ROUNDTABLE ON NARRATIVES AND THE POLICY PROCESS

Narrative Policy Framework Elizabeth Shanahan, Montana State University Michael Jones, Oregon State University Discourse Networks Philip Leifeld, University of Konstanz Karin Ingold, University of Bern Taking Language Seriously: The Role of Emotions and Discourses in Narrative Policy Analysis Anna Durnova, Department of Political Science / University of Vienna The Relation of Narratives to Argumentation Frank Fischer, Rutgers University The Narrative of Policy Narratives: Comparing Approaches Claire Dunlop, University of Exeter Claudio Radaelli, University of Exeter

85 X

y One long-standing theme in policy process research is how policyma-

king evolves in different political-institutional contexts and policy subsystems. This work has been guided by theories and frameworks of the policy process, among them the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Recent work on the ACF has identified areas where more empirical research is needed to further increase our understanding about how institutional factors influence the formation, development, and behavior of advocacy coalitions in the policy process. Relevant areas of inquiry include, but are not limited to, the role and importance of specific institutional features such as veto players, the level of consensus, and system openness. These attributes have been added to the ACF within the notion of “coalition opportunity structures” in an effort to clarify the terms for application of the framework outside American pluralism. Yet, more work remains to clarify how stable system parameters translate into more specific constraints and resources affecting policymaking in the long run.

CHAIR

yDaniel Nohrstedt, Department of Government, Uppsala University

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G022) Christopher Weible, University of Colorado Denver

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 07

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 07

THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Subsystem interconnectedness as part of coalition strategy for policy change: The mining and water sectors in Ecuador between 1990 and 2014 Paul Cisneros, University of California, Davis Private forest policy and policymaking of the Program of Payment for Environmental Services in Costa Rica : between coalitions and institutions Cécile Cathelin, Laboratoire Triangle (Lyon2) et CIRAD Understanding healt-policy change in post dictatorship Chile: an advocacy coalition framework analysis Oriana Piffre, King’s College London A coalition to breakdown the frozen landscape: accomplishments and limits of Uruguayan health care reform (2005-2014) Guillermo Fuentes, Instituto de Ciencia Política, Universidad de la República Martín Freigedo, Instituto de Ciencia Política, Universidad de la República Martín Rodríguez Araújo, Instituto de Ciencia Política, Universidad de la República

This panel collects empirical papers addressing the interplay between coalition opportunity structures and advocacy coalition behavior in different policy subsystems and countries. Papers can cover methodological and theoretical issues related to the relationship between political opportunity structures, advocacy coalition formation and maintenance, learning, policy change and stability. Questions the papers could address include, for example: (i) How do political institutions condition advocacy coalitions’ membership structure? (ii) How does the level of consensus and system openness influence advocacy coalitions’ resources and strategies? (iii) How do political institutions enable and constrain policy change? The panel welcomes empirical research based on a variety of methods for data collection and analysis.

y 86

87 X

y Approaches to and theories of the policy processes are not always explicit

about what drives the process itself. In public choice theory the driving forces are fully informed individual political actors which try to realize their own interests and purposive-rational objectives. According to public choice, a lack of problem solutions is the result of the policy process. In models of the policy-cycle, the aim of political actors to solve political problems is assumed to be the driving force that leads to the progression of the different stages of the policy-cycle, from problem definition until policy evaluation or even policy termination. It is well known that there is a lack in these models that lies in the overestimation of the problem-solving function of political processes. In addition, what happens between the different stages or which factors lead to the next stage of the policy cycle, are questions that are underdeveloped. Rather differently, Kingdon’s Multiple Streams approach sees coincidence and the role of single actors as policy entrepreneurs who discover windows of opportunity and couple the various streams (politics, problems, and policy) that lead to policy change, as the driving force while e.g. the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory suggests that the search for equilibrium is the crucial force driving political processes. Some of these ideas (such as public choice or the policy cycle model) are too simple or technocratic and are limited in providing a deeper understanding of what happens in policy processes and how policy results are shaped. Others come closer to reality but are difficult to be integrated in policy analyses, especially when they provide a lot of aspects and factors that are difficult to be incorporated due to their complexity (e.g. the Advocacy-Coalition-Framework). In our view, policy processes are by no means ordered rational problem-solving processes. Rather, they are characterized by contestation, they are shaped by the interests and power resources of involved actors, by the different nature of policy problems, the ideological background of political alternatives, and coincidences – and things happening in totally different spheres. This panel ties up with the different existing attempts to find better suited theories of the policy process and invites contributions that devote themselves to a better understanding of policy processes and the driving forces behind them. The panel invites contributions with a purely theoretical focus or an empirical with a strong theoretical focus. They might come from all policy fields and start from all sorts of methodological, disciplinary and epistemic backgrounds.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G016) Georg Winkel, University of Freiburg

Narrative Policy Framework Elizabeth Shanahan, Montana State University Michael Jones, Oregon State University The Relevance of Public Opinion for Designing Path-Dependent Policies Katharina Rietig, De Montfort University Law activation strategies in political games: the missing link in environmental policy-making processes? Remi Schweizer, Institute of Political, Historical and International Studies, University of Lausanne The process of labour market reforms in advanced democracies: Evidence from Germany and Japan Steffen Heinrich, German Institute for Japanese Studies (DIJ)

ySession 2 -

yMichael Boecher, University Goettingen yAnnette Toeller, FernUniversitaet Hagen

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 08

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 08 y 88

THEORIES AND CONCEPTIONS OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS BEYOND “POLICY CYCLE” AND “MULTIPLE STREAMS”

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G016) Georg Winkel, University of Freiburg

Political processes in “new health care policy” - multiple streams and their explanatory power in the field of social policy Kathrin Loer, Fernuniversität Hagen The Approach of Intrinsically Dynamic Policy Processes (AIDPP) as a Tool for Analyzing Policy Processes Michael Boecher, University Goettingen, Annette Toeller, FernUniversitaet Hagen Assessing the legitimation and policy dynamics approach (LPD): Policy change in drug enforcement and organized crime policy in Mexico (2000-2012) Cesar Nicandro Cruz-Rubio, GIGAPP. Research Group in Government, Administration and Public Policy Beyond theoretical borders. How theories of public policy-making relate to each other and in what contexts they are most valuable Georg Wenzelburger, TU Kaiserslautern Frieder Wolf, Institut fuer Politische Wissenschaft Juggling multiple networks in multiple streams Evelyne de Leeuw, La Trobe University

89 X

CHAIRS

y This panel aims to lay the foundation for a more systematic understan-

ySession 1

ding of policy analysis in France. This requires a thorough exploration of the distinction usually made in French academic and practitioner debates between policy studies and policy analysis. Since the 18th century policy analysis has mainly been developed as practitioner’s know-how within the State, i.e. as studies for policies as opposed to studies of policy (Dobuzinskis, Howlett and Laycock 2013). Indeed, it was only during the 1970s and 1980s that policy studies emerged as an academic field of expertise within political science and administration studies. Policy analysis or “political sociology of public policy” is now mainly understood in France as an academic field and not as applied research. From this perspective, the study of policy explores the role of the State and its restructuring, processes of government and governance, and State-Society relationships and policies as both a process and an outcome by focusing on policymakers, their practices, ideas and discourses, how they engage in sustained relationships with a large variety of market and society actors, and the concrete devices they use in order to make policy objectives operational. We are looking for papers on five different themes.

-

-

yPatrick Hassenteufel, University of Versailles yPhilippe Zittoun, LET-ENTPE yCharlotte Halpern, Sciences Po Centre d’Etudes Européennes

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G113)

Economic policy analysis from State to market Benamouzig Daniel, CNRS / Sciences Po (CSO-LIEPP) The Academic World of French Policy Analysis: Teaching and Researching Patrick Hassenteufel, University of Versailles Policy Analysis through Media and Legal Procedures: Reshaping Public Health and Beyond Monika Steffen, PACTE/IEP Grenble University Political Parties and Think Tanks Douillet Anne-Cécile, Université de Lille / CERAPS Camilo Argibay, Université de Lyon Cos Rafaël, CERAPS/Université de Lille Methods of Policy Analysis in France Claire Dupuy, University of Grenoble Philippe Zittoun, LET-ENTPE

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 09

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 09

POLICY ANALYSIS IN FRANCE

1. The history of the development of policy analysis in France and its main characteristics in a comparative perspective. 2. Policy analysis in French government or, in other words, the study for policy and production of knowledge meant as way to improve policy-making and outcomes. 3. The role of “Committees, Public Inquiries, and Consultants” in the public policy process. 4. The study for policy and knowledge production within political parties, think-tanks and interest groups. 5. The place of policy analysis within the academic world. We are especially interested in papers tackling the issue of current relationships between the public policy academic community and places of knowledge production for policy within the State, in order to explain why the distinction between policy analysis and policy studies is very much intact. This panel gives the priority to the participants of a collective book, which will be published by Policy Press in the “International Library of Policy Analysis” series, edited by Iris Geva-May and Michael Howlett. y 90

91 X

y The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), as first advanced by John

Kingdon, remains among the most influential approaches to understanding the policy process. The MSF has been adopted in North America and Europe as a way of understanding and explaining agenda change, problem definition, and the selection of alternative policies.The organizers of this panel invite scholars working with the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to propose papers for one or two panels at the IPCC in Milan. We invite papers that extend the MSF beyond its origins in John Kingdon’s work, to encompass, among other aspects, agenda setting, problem definition, and policy change. We invite a variety of theoretical and empirical studies of policy using the MSF at the subnational, national, or comparative scales, and we emphasize critical engagement with the framework and with other theories of policy making.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

-

DISCUSSANT

-

y 92

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G122) Thomas Birkland, NC State University

Multiple Streams and Policy Discourse Analysis – a promising coupling? Georg Winkel, University of Freiburg Sina Leipold, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg Multiple streams approach, agenda-setting and political parties Vilém Novotný, Charles University in Prague, Department of Public and Social Policy Martin Polášek, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Department of Political Science Michel Perottino, Institute of political science, Faculty of social sciences, Charles University in Prague Defining, Explaining and Testing the Role of Focusing Events in Policy Change: Using the Multiple Streams Framework Megan Warnement, North Carolina State University Bringing Formal Political Institutions into the Multiple Streams Framework. An Analytical Proposal Reimut Zohlnhöfer, University of Heidelberg. Departnment of Political Science Nicole Herweg, University of Heidelberg Christian Huß, University of Heidelberg

y Session 3 -

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G122) Megan Warnement, North Carolina State University

US Children’s Health Insurance Policy and the Multiple Streams Framework Alice Sardell, Queens College, CUNY Making Eight or Hitting Dirt: The Importance of Failed Entrepreneurs in Policy Systems Theory Warren Eller, West Virginia University Thomas Bias, West Virginia University Department of Health Policy When streams do not converge: the partial development of smart grids in Quebec Maya Jegen, Université du Québec à Montréal What happens when a ‘policy window’ opens to produce a vague solution to an ill-defined policy problem? Paul Cairney, University of Stirling

ySession 2 -

yThomas Birkland, NC State University yNikolaos Zahariadis, University of Alabama at Birmingham

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 10

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 10

ADVANCES IN THE MULTIPLE STREAMS FRAMEWORK OF THE POLICY PROCESS

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G122) Daniel Nohrstedt, Department of Government, Uppsala University

Elaborating on policy entrepreneurship in the MS framework Harald Saetren, University of Bergen The application of Multiple Streams model in Researches in Brazil. Felipe Brasil, Federal University of São Carlos Ana Claudia Niedhardt Capella, UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista The Multiple Streams Framework and the Problem Broker Åsa Knaggård, Department of Political Science, Lund University

93 X

y Hydraulic fracturing, better known as “fracking,” is the process of

injecting high-pressure water, sand and other chemicals into shale rock formations in order to extract unconventional oil and gas. Fracking has been around for some time, but only in the past several years has the issue come into the public eye. It’s a highly contentious political issue with a global scope because of the high volume of water it uses, the types of chemicals used, the economic potential, and the unknown health and environmental impacts. This panel seeks papers that use theories of policy and politics to understand the debates and conflicts over hydraulic fracturing issues. Some of the important questions that papers might examine include: What are areas of agreement/disagreement? What organizations/ individuals are mobilized and represent the different sides of this issue in a country? What are the capacity, networks, and resources being employed to influence the politics and policy? What strategies, activities, venues are being pursued? What is the current policy status of hydraulic fracturing development? What is the propensity of policy change and maybe consensus into the future? We are looking for papers that pursue these questions and others using a variety of theories and methods. A strong emphasis on advancing theoretical development in the study of policy and politics using this issue is encouraged.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

y 94

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Via Nirone NI111) Karin Ingold, University of Bern Tanya Heikkila, University of Colorado Denver

Hydraulic fracturing in France: Forums used as guidance instruments by policy entrepreneurs to exert their influence on the policy process Stéphane Moyson, Erasmus University Rotterdam Sebastien Chailleux, Sciences Po Bordeaux Comparing the Politics of Hydraulic Fracturing in New York, Colorado, and Texas Christopher Weible, University of Colorado Denver Tanya Heikkila, University of Colorado Denver Media and the Politics of Shale Gas in British Columbia and Quebec Eric Montpetit, Université de Montréal Erick Lachapelle, Université de Montréal Fracking Policy in the UK and Switzerland: Coalition and Cooperation in the Face of Uncertainty and Ambiguity Paul Cairney, University of Stirling Karin Ingold, University of Bern Manuel Fischer, Eawag

y Session 2 -

yTanya Heikkila, University of Colorado Denver yChristopher Weible, University of Colorado Denver

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 11

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 11

POLICY AND POLITICS IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: ADVANCING THEORIES OF CONTENTIOUS POLICY ISSUES

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Nirone NI111) Manuel Fischer, Eawag Christopher Weible, University of Colorado Denver

Agenda Flow and the Multiple Streams of Anti-Fracking Movements Kris Hartley, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore Understanding the Political Processes of Hydraulic Fracturing in India: An Advocacy Coalition Approach Kristin Olofsson, University of Colorado, Denver Juniper Katz, University of Colorado Denver Daniel Costie, University of Colorado Denver Definitional struggles to change policy configuration: The case of the French ban on fracking Philippe Zittoun, LET-ENTPE Hydraulic Fracturing in Federal Systems: the German Debate Jale Tosun, Heidelberg University Achim Lang, University of Konstanz

95 X

y The proposed panel invites papers that address specific issues or

nations as well as papers that adopt a comparative approach. In particular, we are interested in papers that address the dynamics of issue attention, agenda setting, problem definition, the role of institutions in information processing, policy feedback, the supply of information in political systems, those that examine or trace policy change over time, and papers addressing the scale of policy change. In addition to these substantive areas, we also welcome papers addressing the measurement and methodological issues associated with policy dynamics. The disproportionate information processing perspective has proven useful in understanding the dynamics of policy change. In particular, its focus on information processing by political institutions has furthered our understanding of of the forces that shape both incremental and drastic policy change. The early development of the perspective focused on the influence of institutional friction and the ways in which it shaped how information is transformed to agenda and policy change, generating the classic slip-stick dynamics of Jones and Baumgartner (2005). Scholars have recently extended this approach into the areas of state and local politics, regulatory politics, institutional change, media framing and agenda setting, and institutional change. While the perspective has laid a solid foundation for understanding how institutions process information, the question remains as to the nature of the supply of information. How does information get generated in the political system? Further, what are the key factors influencing the nature of the supply of information? The more recent focus on the interplay of supply and processing raises interesting questions surrounding the adaptability and resilience of institutions and processes in the face of sometimes drastic oscillations in information and destabilizing policy change. What are the characteristics of systems, institutions, and processes that foster adaptability or rigidity in information processing?

y 96

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

ySamuel Workman, University of Oklahoma yChristian Breunig, University of Konstanz

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G113) Scott Robinson, University of Oklahoma Bryan Jones, University of Texas at Austin

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 12

TOPIC 01 - PANEL 12

INFORMATION PROCESSING AND POLICY DYNAMIC

The Genotype and Phenotype of Punctuations: A Mechanism for Policy Change Scott Robinson, University of Oklahoma Why Can Some Political Systems Handle More issues Than Others? A Novel Study of the Role Of Committee Structures Peter Mortensen, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University Budgetary Change and Punctuated Equilibrium – A Typology Chris Koski, Reed College Christian Breunig, University of Konstanz The Policy Dynamics of Legislative Issue Attention in India Kuhika Gupta, University of Oklahoma

97 X

yMauricio Dussauge, CIDE yJoseluis Mendez, El Colegio de Mexico

POLICY ANALYSIS IN MEXICO

y The panel will seek to provide a detailed examination and discussion

of the practice of policy analysis in Mexico. We will take a broad view regarding how policy analysis (practices, capacities, etc.) is developed at different levels of governments, as well as in other political institutions (e.g. legislatures), and non-governmental organizations such as unions, business, the third sector, and the media. We are looking for papers which can address any of the following topics in relation to the Mexican case: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Policy Analysis in the Federal Government Policy Analysis in State Governments Policy Analysis in Local Governments Policy Analysis and the legislatures Public Analysis and Advisory Councils (e.g. the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Policy, the Institute for the Evaluation of Public Education, etc.) Policy Analysis, Public Opinion and the Media Policy Analysis, Consultants and Think Tanks Policy Analysis and Political Parties Policy Analysis and Business Associations Policy Analysis and Unions Policy Analysis in the Third Sector Policy Analysis Instruction and Academic Research in Mexico

Regardless of their theoretical and/or analytical point of departure, papers are expected to be heavily based on original empirical research. The revised versions of the manuscripts are expected to appear in an edited volume on Policy Analysis in Mexico, in both Spanish and English language versions.

y 98

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

-

Policy Analysis Instruction and Academic Research in Mexico Eduardo Villarreal, CIDE Policy Making in the Mexican Federal Government Guillermo Cejudo, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas CIDE Theoretical approaches and instrumental considerations regarding public policy teaching at undergraduate and graduate level León Juan Carlos , Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales Sánchez Pablo, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales The Evolution of Policy Analysis as a Profession and Field of Studies in Mexico. Features and Factors Joseluis Mendez, El Colegio de Mexico

ySession 2 -

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA114)

Congressional Policy Analysis in Mexico Rodrigo Velázquez, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas Advertising and Obesity: A case of Auto-regulation, Regulation and Public Policy In Advertising Which Targets Infants And Children. Case study of Mexico. Carola García Calderón, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Policy Analysis in Mexico´s Autonomous Agencies Mauricio Dussauge, CIDE Systems of Local Governance Oliver David Meza Canales, CIDE

ySession 3 -

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Santa Agnese SA114)

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 02 - COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA114)

Entrepreneurial Chambers and Public Policies Carlos Alba-Vega, Centro de Estudios Internacionales, El Colegio de México Policy Analysis in the Third Sector Fernanda Somuano, El Colegio de México Policy Analysis in the Mexican States: Where We Are Juan Olmeda, El Colegio de México Analysis of Public Health Policies in Times of Globalization. Applied Design Dimensions Enrique Garcia, Universidad Nacional autonoma de Mexico Mauricio Dussauge, CIDE

99 X

y Policy transfer has become an important framework for understan-

ding how policy ideas, models, methods and tools travel. The “travelling” process is not without contention and conflict and resistance, but it is an important way of understanding why policy models being adopted and promoted in Afghanistan look similar to those in Albania and Alabama. International organisations – governmental, non-governmental, and private – are all engaged in the complex process of policy transfer, particularly in transitional situations, state-building, and accession scenarios. However, despite some useful macro-models of how transfer can occur, we know relatively little about the complex micro-dynamics on the ground. For example, in any given “transfer theatre” such as a developing state, there are a multitude of transfer agents at work, sometimes competing, sometimes cooperating, and a multitude of recipient agencies with their own agendas. The dynamics of the interaction of these players determines how the transfer plays out – what is adopted, how it is adapted, and often whether it is successful or not in any real sense. Understanding these micro-dynamics often depends on mixed method approaches that bring anthropological, sociological, and political techniques to bear in building a coherent narrative of events and outcomes. This panel invites papers on the micro-mechanics of policy transfer, highlighting specific and empirically grounded case studies to push the analysis and frameworks forward, with theoretically relevant findings. Some sample questions to be explored: How do “transfer contexts” get shaped at the micro-level? Which ones are more or less receptive to new policy ideas and what determines receptivity? What kind of “expertise” do governments expect or want? And what kind of expertise is effectively supplied by the different international actors? Do these international bodies try to adapt their methods to the context of the countries concerned? How do multiple players on the ground in a given situation interact, competitively and cooperatively? How do domestic actors include international standards in their reform strategies (“translation”, “interpretation”, rejection, oversight)? What facilitates and what impedes transfer?

y 100

CHAIRS

yLeslie Pal, Carleton University yMagdaléna Hadjiisky, Université de Strasbourg & Sociétés, acteurs et gouvernement en Europe, CNRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

DISCUSSANT

-

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G005) Leslie Pal, Carleton University

Social Dialogue In Turkey, from Transfer to Transfers Claire Visier, European Institute / Istanbul Bilgi University Isil Erdinc, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Policy transfer in smoking prevention policies in Switzerland: micro-processes - big effects Céline Mavrot, University of Bern Policy transfer as a multi-layered process of translations. The policymaking of Lean management as a state reform instrument Cécile Vigour, Centre Emile Durkheim (CNRS / Sciences Po Bordeaux)

ySession 3 -

Leslie Pal, Carleton University

The micro-mechanisms of policy transfer from the German Energiewende to California Karoline Steinbacher, Freie Universitaet Berlin Participatory Budgeting transfers in Southern Africa: global players, regional organizations and local actors Osmany Porto de Oliveira, Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning/Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris III From state to market: A micro analysis of factors that shape policy transfer and implementation. A policy case study from the Australian and South African road transport sectors. Christopher Walker, University of New South Wales, Australia Transnational Policy Transfers and Domestic Policy Resilience: A Comparative Analysis of the Adoption and Implementation of REDD+ in Indonesia and Tanzania Sébastien Jodoin, McGill University

ySession 2 -

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G005)

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 02

POLICY TRANSFER: MICRO-MECHANICS AND MACRO-EFFECTS: LOCAL AND NATIONAL ACTORS

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G005) Leslie Pal, Carleton University

Transfers and Learning in the Framework of Bulgarian Legal Reforms (1990-2013) Thierry Delpeuch, CNRS Margarita Vassileva, Centra Marc Bloch de Berlin Reframing Development from the South? A Debate on the Internationalization of Brazil’s Rural Policies Carolina Milhorance de Castro, CIRAD/University of Brasilia Voluntary policy transfer in developing countries: international and domestic agents and process dynamics Lhawang Ugyel, Australian National University Carsten Daugbjerg, Crawford School, Australian National University

101 X

y Energy policy is characterised by the following developments: First,

energy issues benefit from elevated levels of political attention, which results in the production of a large body of energy-related legislation. Second, concerns about the environment and climate change are essential for the policy dynamics in this field. Third, energy policy is becoming more and more diverse and now also includes considerations about the affordability of energy and other social aspects. In short, energy policy presents itself as a very dynamic and diverse field, which must be analysed in greater detail. We are seeking both conceptual and empirical papers that revolve around the following questions: What are the challenges to energy markets? Which policy responses are discussed or adopted? Which actors are influential in energy politics and what are their strategies? We encourage the participants to answer these questions in a variety of ways, for example, by applying quantitative methods, case studies, discourse analysis, or surveys. Yet we ask the authors to be as transparent as possible in the methods of data collection and analysis. In a similar vein, we welcome theoretical plurality, but strictly require all proposals to pay increased attention to the theoretical underpinning of their studies. We aim to contribute to the state of research by providing a theoretically informed analysis of the key challenges in a policy area that is rising in importance and the responses to these challenges by policy makers. We invite both advanced and young scholars of different disciplinary backgrounds (economics, political science, public administration, and sociology) working energy politics. In terms of output, we plan to put together a special issue of a relevant journal in the field or an edited volume.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

DISCUSSANTS

-

y 102

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Via Lanzone VL0-01/G053) Michael Dobbins, Goethe University of Frankfurt Achim Lang, University of Konstanz

Regulating private governance in the public interest. Evidence from European energy policy Sandra Eckert, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Department of Social Sciences, Institute for Political Science What’s the Link Between Crisis and Policy Meltdown? Insights from a Comparative Study of Discourse Networks Adrian Rinscheid, University of St.Gallen European energy policy: Disunited in diversity? Samuel Schubert, Webster University Vienna Ohannes Pollak, Institute for Advanced Studies The European Natural Gas Market Reforms Revisited: Differentiating between Regulatory Output and Outcome Nicole Herweg, University of Heidelberg Kathrin Dümig, University of Heidelberg Stefan Wurster, University Heidelberg

ySession 2 -

yJale Tosun, Heidelberg University yAchim Lang, University of Konstanz yMichael Dobbins, Goethe University of Frankfurt

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 03

CHALLENGES TO ENERGY MARKETS: TRIGGERS AND POLICY RESPONSES

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Via Lanzone VL0-01/G053) Achim Lang, University of Konstanz Michael Dobbins, Goethe University of Frankfurt

The change of electricity market in France and Japan Miyuki Tsuchiya, University Paris 2 Assas Climate Change as Challenge to Energy Markets: Exploring and Explaining UK and German Policy Responses Caroline Kuzemko, University of Exeter, UK Development dynamics of resource abundance and innovation in the energy sector Elina Brutschin, Webster University, Vienna Austria Andreas Fleig, Department of Political Science, University of Heidelberg Mexico: Is the Implementation of the New Oil Reform Viable without a State Reform? Isabelle Rousseau, El Colegio de México Economic Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool: A Comparative Study of the Effects on the Russian and Iranian oil and gas industries Yana Zdanovich, Higher School of Economics National Research University Mahama Tawat, Higher School of Economics

103 X

y All European Welfare Systems (EWS) are facing severe challenges and

it is uncertain as to what extent political re-actions change our acquainted worlds of welfare. The financial crisis in particular has shown that 1) the same challenges often hit EWS in different ways and that, accordingly, (2) also EWS’ reactions to the crisis differ broadly. European countries with similar sets of criteria (e.g. demographic structure, (un)employment rate and public deficit/debt) have generated wildly diverging policy responses; some have relied on stimulus packages, others on austerity policies, some have protected insiders’ interests while others have opted for more universal policies. Although the future development of the EWS seems to be open to change, it is reasonable to see future processes taking place in a corridor between national path-dependency, a large variety of political intentions and EU-stimulated coordinated action. Against this background, research into EWS cannot be restricted to a general systems perspective but has to include the perceptions, estimations and expectations of political actors, stakeholders, interest groups and involved institutions. Thus, adopting a policy analysis perspective seems most fruitful. Although the challenges EWS have been facing have been increasingly researched, we still lack up-to-date analyses that provide a more actor-oriented perspective on 1) how EWS have developed since the outbreak of the crises, and 2) how similarities and differences in policy-making can be explained. We encourage comparative public policy scholars of all stages to submit papers. We invite empirical contributions that adopt an actor-centered perspective on EWS since the outbreak of the crises. Both synchronic and diachronic comparisons of welfare systems and of specific policy fields are welcome, ranging from comparative case studies to large-N and applying quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods designs. Contributions with a theoretical focus on the conceptualization of continuity and change of welfare systems are also welcome.

CHAIRS

yKlaus Schubert, Institute for Political Science, University of Muenster

yJohanna Kuhlmann, Institute for Political Science, University of Muenster

ySession 1 -

-

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G122)

Old-age pension benefits: state responsibilities in the design of pension systems of the Baltic countries Olga Rajevska, University of Latvia Feliciana Rajevska, Vidzeme Univeraity of Applied Sciences Social Policy in Hard Times: An Analysis of Cross-national Variation in Crisis-Coping Strategies from 1975 to 2013 Yves Steinebach, LMU München - GSI Christoph Knill, University of Munich Theorising continuity and change in European Welfare Systems: Perceptions, periodisations and epochal generalisations Daniel Wincott, Cardiff University European demographic change and welfare challenges Mare Ainsaar, University of Tartu Kadri Rootalu, University of Tartu Policy convergence across welfare regimes: the case of disability policies Agota Scharle, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis Balázs Váradi, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis Flóra Samu, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 04 y 104

CHALLENGES TO EUROPEAN WELFARE SYSTEMS - CURRENT PROBLEMS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

105 X

y There has been a steadily increasing interest in policy convergence

in higher education in the last 15 years. The bulk of these studies originate from Europe, comparing either countries or regions in Europe (e.g. West and East, EU and non-EU), while a much smaller portion focuses on comparisons between Europe and the US, on non-European countries or on convergence within countries with more complicated distribution of competence in the area of higher education (e.g. Germany, Spain, UK). Some studies argue that policies and systems of higher education are becoming more similar over time, while others point towards a complex mixture of patterns of convergence and divergence. Steps have been made towards providing partial explanations of such patterns – a combination of diffusion of global scripts (sometimes promoted by international organizations such as OECD and World Bank), Europeanization, policy transfer and policy learning on ‘the convergence side’ and local translation and editing, path-dependence and complexity of higher education change on ‘the divergence side’. However, what is lacking is (1) a clearer answer to the question ‘what we talk about when we talk about convergence’, and related to it (2) a comprehensive and robust theoretical framework that can be systematically tested.

CHAIRS

yMartina Vukasovic, Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent (CHEGG), Ghent University

yDonald Westerheijden, CHEPS, University of Twente

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA117) Giliberto Capano, Scuola normale superiore

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 05

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 05

PATTERNS AND PATHWAYS OF CONVERGENCE/ DIVERGENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

European policy instruments as a means for standardization Mari Elken, NIFU - Nordic Institute for Studies on Innovation, Research and Education, Policy convergence between European stakeholder organizations in higher education: Measures and mechanisms Martina Vukasovic, Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent (CHEGG) Ghent University Institutional Quality Reviews in higher education institutions in Ireland - North and South Sharon Feeney, Dublin Institute of Technology Narratives of Change: Turkey and the Bologna Process Ozge Onursal Besgul, Istanbul Bilgi University The Internationalization and Europeanization of Higher Education – The Case of Israel Yoav Friedman, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev The Transfer of Higher Education Policies. The Case of the East African systems Olivier Provini, Université de Pau et des Pays des l’Adour; Les Afriques dans le Monde

With this in mind, the panel invites contributions that analyse higher education policy dynamics in a comparative perspective, in Europe as well as beyond. The contributions may focus on one or more parts of the policy process – agenda-setting, decision-making, implementation and evaluation – mirroring the distinction made by Pollitt (2002) between discursive, decisional, practice and results convergence. Other approaches to conceptualizing and operationalizing convergence are welcome, e.g. the distinction between horizontal (sigma) and vertical (delta) policy convergence (Heichel et al., 2005; Heinze & Knill, 2008) may be of interest. With regards to mechanisms leading to a specific pattern of convergence/divergence, the contributions should specify as clearly as possible their theoretical underpinnings and expectations (formulation of explicit propositions/ hypotheses is welcome).

y 106

107 X

y This panel is a merge between two panels presenting international exam-

CHAIRS

ySession 1

ples of dealing with public budgeting and social policies in the global market.

DISCUSSANTS -

-

-

y 108

yGrace Skogstad, University of Toronto yHolly Jarman, University of Michigan

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G112) Rodrigo Carmona, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Steven Masvaure, Human Sciences Research Council

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 06

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE BUDGETARY PROCESS

Reforming the U.S. State pension: Optimizing Social Security Cuts to Jump-Start Political Compromise William Brandon, University of North Carolina Charlotte Zachary Mohr, University of North Carolina at Charlotte Participatory Budgeting in Argentina. An analysis of the results in political-institutional matters and citizen participation Rodrigo Carmona, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento Barbara Couto, Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento Local autonomy, budget balance and financial sustainability. Trends and contemporary perspectives on relationships of financial supervision, and local budgetary control in Spain (2008-2014) Bernabé Aldeguer Cerdá, University of Alicante (UA) - Spain Gema sanchez medero, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

109 X

y Coordination problems have been a recurrent issue in the study of

public policy. Particularly, cross-sectorial coordination has become ever more pressing due to ongoing specialization of public policies in more and more sectors. To efficiently respond to complex policy problems, researchers and policymakers have coined concepts such as whole of government, joined-up government, or horizontal governance. At the same time, analytically, field concepts have gained in importance for the analysis of public policies, referring to overlapping sub systems, boundary-spanning policy regimes, or functional regulatory spaces. However, whereas the body of conceptual frames and terms for the analysis of coordination of policy sectors is vast, comparative empirical research of this problem is scarce, especially the comparison between countries. Therefore, this panel invites papers that focus on the coordination of policy sectors, particularly if they pursue comparative empirical analysis, either with regard to certain issues in one country or in different countries. Successful papers conduct research on the relation of these policy sectors from a comparative perspective, posing questions such as: What differences with respect to typical instruments or mechanisms of policy sectorial coordination can be observed and how can we explain them? How do relations between policy sectors differ with regard to conflict-intensity and what are the politics of coordination? Consequently, this panel contributes to a better understanding of the coordination patterns in public policy, by sharpening our understanding of sectorial relations in policy and politics through cross-sectorial empirical studies.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

-

y 110

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G122) Eva Lieberherr, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Tanja Klenk, University of Potsdam

Federal and “Inter-Sector” Coordination Strategies in the Brazilian Income Transfer Policies: A Southeast Capitals Comparison Carolina Raquel Justo, Federal University of São Carlos - UFSCar (universidade Federal de São Carlos) The Territorial Policy Integration: the case of Barcelona and its hinterland Anna Antó, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona UAB Sectoral foreign policies: Emergence and coordination issues of forest foreign policies of Argentina, Germany, Indonesia and Bangladesh in comparative perspective Sarah Burns, University Goettingen/Germany / Lukas Giessen, University Goettingen/Germany How to compare the coordination of policy sectors? Coupling of actors, institutions and policies Philipp Trein, Université de Lausanne The Networks of Policy Integration: How different Directorate Generals of the European Commission Work Together Achim Lang, University of Konstanz/ Claudio Radaelli, University of Exeter Jale Tosun, Heidelberg University

ySession 2 -

yPhilipp Trein, Université de Lausanne yTanja Klenk, University of Potsdam

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 07

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 07

COMPARING HORIZONTAL COORDINATION OF POLICY SECTORS

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G122) Ina Radtke, University of Potsdam Philipp Trein, Université de Lausanne

Overcoming risk-averse behavior of public sector organizations in cross-sectorial and multi-level collaborative innovation networks Vidar Stevens, University of Antwerp Koen Verhoest, public administration & management group, dep. of Politics, University of Antwerp Beyond a logic of effectiveness: Horizontal integration and democratic legitimacy Eva Lieberherr, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology / Karin Ingold, University of Bern Administrative coordination in the autonomous state: a case study of the Spanish Sectoral Conferences in environmental, health and educational policies. Jaione Mondragón, Basque Country University/ Alberto de la Peña, University of the Basque Country / Arantxa Elizondo, University of the Basque Country / Juan Luis Mokoroa, University of Basque Country Structures of horizontal coordination: The influence of policy-related factors in climate adaptation, raw materials and labour immigration Ina Radtke, University of Potsdam, [email protected] / Thurid Hustedt, University of Potsdam Anne Klinnert, University Potsdam Overlapping subsystems: Swiss water policy across media and parliament Laurence Brandenberger, University of Bern (Institute of Political Sciences) AND Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag) / Isabelle Schlaepfer, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag) AND University of Bern, Institute of Political Science / Philip Leifeld, University of Konstanz / Manuel Fischer, Eawag

111 X

y The political economy of Asia has experienced profound change over

the last thirty years or so. Much of this transformation, of course, rests in the on-going expansion of Asian economies, deepening economic growth and generally increasing national incomes. Indeed, this transformation has often been enthusiastically celebrated, marking an epochal change in terms of the rise of the East as economies in Asia leap-frog ahead of their developed counterparts. A recent article in the Financial Times (October 8, 2014), for example, reported findings by the International Monetary Fund that in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), China was now the world’s largest economy, while Indonesia had overtaken the United Kingdom to become the 10th largest economy in the world. If such absolute epochal transformations are to be believed, commensurate achievements in the development of human capital should also be apparent. Indeed, historically, investment in Asia’s higher education sector was identified as a key driver of the region’s transformation, attracting considerable resources and policy attention. But after thirty years of sustained investment into the sector, what outcomes have resulted? What role has higher education played in supporting economic and social transformation in the region? While participation rates have trended upwards, commensurate increases in higher education institutional quality or global research innovation, impact and leadership still trails in international league tables.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

yDarryl Jarvis, Hong Kong Institute of Education, yKa Ho Mok, The Hong Kong Institute of Education,

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G115) Giliberto Capano, Scuola normale superiore

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 08

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 08

HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY IN ASIA: REFORM, OUTCOMES, EQUITY AND ACCESS

A Public Policy Perspective on the Privatization of HEIs in Taiwan Natalie Pretzer-Lin, National Chengchi University The entrepreneurial university in Taiwan and South Korea: effects and policy responses Christian Schafferer, Overseas Chinese University Higher Education in Asia: The Political Economy of Sectoral under Performance Darryl Jarvis, Hong Kong Institute of Education Political Challenges and Changing Agendas for Higher Education in Hong Kong and Singapore William Yat Wai Lo, The Hong Kong Institute of Education

This panel seeks to examine developments in the higher Education sector in Asia in terms of 1) the achievements of the sector over the last thirty years or so (participation rates – access and equity, resources, research, impact and quality); 2) recent developments in the sector in terms of funding (public versus private), policy innovation, research, internationalization and rankings, and 3) challenges and future prospects for higher education in Asia. Comparative and case study country papers are welcome.

y 112

113 X

y This panel seeks to go beyond the conventional analytic framework for the regulation of judges which relies on the tension between independence and accountability.

Drawing on contemporary regulation and governance theory, the panel explores the possibility of analysing the regulation of judges through a four faced prism: values, processes, resources and outcomes. Values generates a focus on independence; impartiality; accountability; representativeness; transparency; and efficiency. Processes generates a focus on institutional relations (e.g. constitutional, conventional or statutory) with the other state institutions (e.g. executive, legislature, Crown, religious authorities, etc.); appointments processes; continuing education and training; appellate mechanisms; ethical assistance programs and networks; complaints and discipline processes; relations and engagement with the public; relations with media; judicial immunity/liability; and evaluation of judges. Resources generates a focus on court budgets; numbers of judges, part time and full time, per capita; salaries and pensions of judges; physical infrastructure; support staff; technological needs/supports; and security. Outcomes generates a focus on public satisfaction with, and confidence in, the judiciary.

y 114

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

yRichard Devlin, Dalhousie University

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G135) Richard Devlin, Dalhousie University

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 09

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 09

REGULATING JUDGES: EXPANDING THE HORIZONS

Between the Executive and the Judiciary: the judges of the Italian Council of State Elisa Rebessi, Università degli Studi di Milano Fighting Words: Regulating Judges in Canada Adam Dodek, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, [email protected] Richard Devlin, Dalhousie University Regulating Judges, Japanese-Style: The Prevalence of Informal Mechanisms Kay-Wah Chan, Macquarie University Regulating judges in Italy Marco Fabri, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council of Italy (IRSIG-CNR)

115 X

y We are pleased to announce a call for papers for a panel devoted

to the “Policy Making between challenges and opportunities: An African Perspective”. The panel welcomes submissions on various aspects of the policy making process in Africa. While considerable attention has been paid to various characteristics of African political system (party systems, party system instability, governance, good governance, corruption) or to how such characteristics affect policy making in the African continent, much less attention has been paid to studying public policies from an African perspective. The purpose of the panel is to provide participants with an opportunity to analyse the policy making process from a plurality of perspectives by employing not only concepts and methods developed to study highly institutionalized political systems but by employing also conceptual tools and methodologies elaborated by African policy analysts to grasp the intricacies and the complexities of policy making in the region. By bringing in an African perspective the panel plans to make a contribution to furthering our understanding of public policy and policy making in the African continent.

CHAIRS

Nazarbayev University

yAbel Kinyondo, REPOA

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT -

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G113) Riccardo Pelizzo, Graduate School of Public Policy, Nazarbayev University

The limits and local adaptations of evidence for health policy: insights from Ghana and Ethiopia Elisa Vecchione, LSHTM Justin Parkhurst, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Analysing transnational policymaking through the theoretical lens of state building in Tanzania. A comparative study of higher education and land policies. Sina Schlimmer, Sciences Po Bordeaux Olivier Provini, Université de Pau et des Pays des l’Adour, Les Afriques dans le Monde Opportunities and Challenges Emerging from the Rise of China: an African Perspective Julie Yu-Wen Chen, Graduate School of Public Policy, Nazarbayev University Niall Duggan, Department of Government Borders: Social Interaction and Economic and Political Integration of the East African Community Constantine Manda, Yale University Josie Knowles, Queen’s University Belfast John Patrick Connors, Arizona State Unviersity Stephen Mwombela, REPOA

ySession 2

-

y 116

yRiccardo Pelizzo, Graduate School of Public Policy,

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 10

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 10

POLICY MAKING BETWEEN CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES: AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G113) Riccardo Pelizzo, Graduate School of Public Policy, Nazarbayev University

Analysis of policy implementation of the Nigerian EITI Act of 2007: Challenges and Opportunities Jason McSparren, University of Massachusetts, Boston Defining and measuring political stability: A Multi-Dimensional Approach Omer Baris, Nazarbayev University Riccardo Pelizzo, Graduate School of Public Policy, Nazarbayev University Looking Beyond the Plan and Understanding the Process: Lessons from Rea Vaya Antje Witting, University of Konstanz Daniel Wegner, University of Konstanz

117 X

y Interest in policy instruments is growing. Both policy paradigms and technology not to mention ideology generate a range of tools to reach the goals of public policy. Also, redefinition of the state’s role in the direction of partnership with both the private and community sectors, alternatives have multiplied. Lascoumes, Le Galès and co-authors (2005; 2007; 2013) have proposed a political sociology approach to the analysis of instruments. As these authors remind us, no instrument is neutral in its effects, and decision-makers’ selection rests on a theorising (explicit or not) about the relationship between governed and governor. This panel is aligned with this political sociological approach. Much work has been done on policy instruments but the approach’s roots in taxing, mapping, policing, and economic and spatial regulation has meant that it is less familiar to those concerned with instrument choice and consequences in the fields of social policy. The goal of the panel is to fill this gap. The social policy domain has seen numerous changes in and diffusion of instruments, such as reliance on fiscal income transfers and conditional transfers; provision of early childhood education; pension financing; care provision; and so on. Moreover, these instruments have emerged not only from the traditionally powerful states of the Global North but in some interesting cases from the Global South. This panel is particularly concerned, therefore, to present case studies or comparative analysis of: innovations in social policy instruments and instrumentation; diffusion of social policy instruments across scale and space; variation in instruments in accordance with targeted populations, whether mainstream or marginal; shifts in the meaning of the instrument and its objectives over time. Papers are welcome that deal with social policy instruments in a range of geographical cases and of scales (local, provincial, national, supra, inter and transnational).

y 118

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA223) Patrick Le Galès, Sciences Po Paris

Governing Through Choice - What can be Learnt From the Swedish Experience? Paula Blomqvist, Dept of Government Social impact bonds: nature, implicit assumptions and forecasting evaluation. Analysis of a supposed new social policy instrument. Giulio Pasi, Institute of Advanced Study of Pavia Direct financial aid for individuals – implausible social policy instrument. Case study of local social policy instrument in the Czech Republic Eva Hejzlarová, Department of Public and Social Policy, Faculty of Social SciencesCharles University in Prague The call of projects as tool of implementation, a challenge for actors dealing with EU funding’s instruments. The case of the European Social Funds in the Wallonia Region (BE) Fanny Sbaraglia, Université Libre de Bruxelles Policy Instruments and the definition of early childhood education and care as a policy field: a comparison of Anglophone countries Daniel Wincott, Cardiff University

ySession 2 -

yJane Jenson, Université de Montréal, yNora Nagels, Université du Québec à Montréal

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 11

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 11

ANALYSING INSTRUMENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY: THE CASE OF SOCIAL POLICY

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA223) Daniel Wincott, Cardiff University

Reporting on gender equality: comparing the career of an « old » policy instrument across sectors and borders Sophie Rouault, Bremen University of Applied Sciences A Comparative Look at Childcare Polices in East Asia Miyoung An, Kookmin University Conditional Cash Transfers in Peru and Bolivia: Instrumenting a return to maternalism and neocolonialism in social policy Jane Jenson, Université de Montréal Nora Nagels, Université du Québec à Montréal “Policy Instrument, or Political Instrumentalization? Diversity, Equality and the Quebec Charter of Values” Alexandra Dobrowolsky, Saint Mary’s University

119 X

y The outset of the 21st century has been full of a new set of complex

public policy issues confronting the developing world. Policy makers have been asked to respond to these daunting new challenges in a context marked by increasing volatility, uncertainty and unpredictability. A proper response to these issues demands important innovations in public policy, including (but are not limited to) new modes of governance and social coordination, new uses of social media and social networks, new monitoring and evaluation strategies, among other things. In other words, as the strategic importance of fostering public policy innovation has been acknowledged, many important questions stay remain unanswered, such as: What exactly should be considered as a public policy innovation in the developing world, and what impact do they have on politics and collective life, locally, nationally and internationally? What conditions, causal mechanisms or different modes of public policy innovations might be identified both historically and in the present? What do new forms of public policy innovation mean for the development processes in different institutional and cultural contexts? How does public policy innovations interact with other traditional institutions and organizations in the public sector and society? How does public policy innovation affect core functions and processes within the government? Can public policy innovations in developed world inform new demands in Latin America, East Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (or vice-versa)?

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

yWellington Almeida, Universidade de Brasília - UNB yPaulo Calmon, Universidade de Brasilia

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G134) Paulo Calmon, Universidade de Brasilia

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 12

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 12

PUBLIC POLICY INNOVATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: LESSONS FROM THE DEVELOPING WORLD

Diffusing Brazil’s Zero Hunger Strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Insights from the Mozambican Case Carolina Milhorance de Castro, CIRAD/University of Brasilia Public policy innovation and lessons from the South: the National School of Socio-education (ENS) as an innovative solution for public policy in the field of Human Rights in Brazil Bernardo Kipnis, University of Brasilia Marcus Vinicius Goulart Gonzaga Junior, Universidade de Brasilia What explains innovative city governments? A transaction cost approach Mulya Amri, National University of Singapore When Developing Countries supersede International Regulatory Benchmarks; Telecommunications innovation in the Mediterranean area Veronique Wavre, University of Exeter

This panel is open for the experience of countries in the so-called developing regions, but also for comparative studies examining experiences of different countries. We specially welcome papers that are explicitly interdisciplinary and that foster discussion of research that is informed by diverse theoretical and analytical approaches. Papers may address topics that are historical and/or contemporary. We also welcome proposals that showcase case studies exploring salient issues related to public policy innovation in developing countries.

y 120

121 X

y Comparative public policy and comparative politics have often run on

parallel tracks. Researchers in both fields are typically explaining public policies; public policies such as labour market or welfare state decisions are staple topics in comparative politics. But the two fields are often using different conceptual languages, theories, and citations. Issues and theories such as implementation, agenda-setting, incrementalism and advocacy coalitions rarely appear in comparative politics literature, while partisanship, state structure, and broader political economy issues such as industrial relations are rarely prominent in public policy writing. The result is a lost opportunity- for comparative politics to benefit from expertise in policy analysis and research, and for comparative public policy to more fully engage with comparative politics theories and methods.This panel explores the relationship between the two fields, asking how they do and might relate. Topics that papers might address include:

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

yScott Greer, University of Michigan yMargitta Mätzke, Johannes-Kepler-University Linz

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA117) Holly Jarman, University of Michigan

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 14

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 14

COMPARATIVE PUBLIC POLICY AND COMPARATIVE POLITICS: THEIR RELATIONSHIP AND FRUITFUL COOPERATION

Economic Performance, Citizens’ Support, and Policy capacity: Evidence from East and Southeast Asia Fiona Yap, The Australian National University Ideational Theory: A Fruitful Terrain of Fertilization for Comparative Politics and Comparative Public Policy Mahama Tawat, Higher School of Economics Natalia Karmaeva, Higher School of Economics Partisan Polarization in Legislative Process and Executive Unilateralism: A Comparative Look at Welfare Policy in the U.S. and South Korea Seong Ho Lim, Kyung Hee University Jong Sik Kim, Ajou University Political Economy of Regime Transition in Welfare Capitalism: A Comparative Study of Small Western European States and South Korea Jaehung Ahn, Ajou University Executive-legislative Relations, Agenda Control, and Government Spending in Asia Fiona Yap, The Australian National University

Theoretical frameworks and levels of analysis. How do comparative politics approaches, focused on institutions, parties, and coalitions fit with the more finely grained analyses, such as network or agenda-setting approaches, often found in public policy theories? How can their relationship be complementary, or are they rivals? What is the relationship between subject field expertise, in an area such as environmental, educational, or social policy and broader political analysis such as found in comparative political economy? What cross-fertilization can there be between the methods associated with comparative politics and comparative public policy?

y 122

123 X

y From a broad perspective, we aim to collect papers that support this

‘policy turn’ in the study of judicial systems. In this vein, the panel aims to look at the role and the goals of the different actors, the resources they put into the arena and the mechanisms they activate to reach their policy outcomes. First of all, we encourage papers focusing on modernization and innovation policies in the judicial sector, and adopting theoretical models and frameworks drawn from public policy analysis. We welcome papers with a comparative view, as well as on specific national case study (that will be used for summative analysis and discussions, to maintain the comparative orientation of the panel). Another aim of the panel is to stimulate a debate covering the approaches that could be used for this type of analysis. Specifically, although for a long time, the most influential method of analysis was the so-called ‘stage heuristic/policy cycle model’, new theoretical frameworks emerged at the end of the 1980s, with the aim to developing testable and falsifiable causal theories, and to identify causal factors that govern the policy process: the Advocacy Coalition Framework; the Multiple-Streams Framework; the Punctuated-Equilibrium Framework. In the last decade, nevertheless, some relevant proposals have maintained their foundations on the policy cycle approach with new and interesting perspectives, inclined to preserve both an actor-centered orientation and the micro-foundation of the researches. We can mention here for instance, the works on policy design and policy instruments; a renewed interest in the analysis of implementation processes and in policy evaluation, due to the researches on capacity building and on the identification of social mechanisms; the researches about policy learning and policy transfer, that influenced the studies on agenda setting, decision making processes and implementation too. As some of those approaches seem to be promising for the study of policy change and innovation in the judicial sector, this panel aims to be the venue for new research proposals adopting these models and to stimulate a long-lasting discussion on the study of the judicial policies.

y 124

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Santa Agnese SA223) Daniela Piana, University of Bologna

When more resources are not enough: the case of the strategic plan for the modernization of the Spanish judicial system Verzelloni Luca, Centro de Estudos Sociais - Universidade de Coimbra Opening the black box of administrative innovation: A process tracing application Simone Busetti, Politecnico di Milano Giancarlo Vecchi, Politecnico di Milano The Evolution of Management Models in courts: the case of Belgium after the 2014 reform Frederic Schoenaers, University of Liège The modernization of judicial offices in Italy: a case of policy change? Giancarlo Vecchi, Politecnico di Milano Political Uncertainty as a consequence of the policentricity of the system of international courts (on the cases of ECHR and ECJ) Anastasia Lukyanova, Higher School of Economics in Moscow Yury Fogelson, Higher School of Economics

ySession 2 -

yGiancarlo Vecchi, Politecnico di Milano, yDaniela Piana, University of Bologna

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 17

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 17

JUDICIAL POLICIES AND ORGANIZATIONAL MODERNIZATION. A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE JUDICIARY

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA223) Giancarlo Vecchi, Politecnico di Milano

New reforms, old debates: analysing public policies in justice and its impacts on the judicial system”. abstract: Susana Santos, ISCTE-IUL Towards designing better judicial training policies: an empirical research on the training needs and perceptions of Romanian magistrates Diana Richards, University College London The managerial transformations of the justice system in Europe: a shift or a new model of justice? Cécile Vigour, Centre Emile Durkheim (CNRS / Sciences Po Bordeaux) Actors, powers and conflict: judicial reforms in Romania before and after the EU accession Cristina Dallara, National Research Council of Italy (IRSIG-CNR)

125 X

y The centre of government remains crucial for governance and poli-

cy-making given its functions and location within government. It is uniquely able to contribute to policy priority setting, coordination, and the advancement and management of governments’ policy agendas. However how the centre is structured and what it does have been subject to ongoing endogenous and exogenous adaptive pressures, as well as successive public sector reforms. Decentralization, deregulation, devolution, organizational redesign, and increased non-state participation in policy making and governance have, in many jurisdictions, contributed to a decentering of the public sector. That is, eroded or altered the center’s function or capacity to govern. This panel will explore the theoretical and empirical policy implications of this decentering, and the various responses to it including ‘recentering’ among others. The aim of this panel is twofold. First, to bring together scholars who are engaged in the assessments of the ‘policy work’ undertaken at the ‘centre of government’. That is, analysis of the day-to-day policy practices of actors within the institution(s) that provides direct support to a country’s chief executive. This centre of government typically includes the president/prime minister and their office, the central public service agency (e.g. cabinet office), department of finance, and the treasury or budget management offices/departments. The second aim is to engage in comparative assessments of the causes, consequences, as well as the coping strategies and policy implications of decentering/recentering, in different systems of government, jurisdictions, and policy domains. Papers are welcome that address one or both of these aims. For example: the policy work of actors at the centre, or shifts in the nature of their policy work over time, analysis of the policy functions of individual institutions at the centre of government or interactive effects, or conceptual or empirical analysis of the implications of decentering/recentering for policy theory. Papers are particularly welcome that focus on the implications of decentering/recentering for policy coordination, policy advisory practices at the centre, policy agenda creation and management dynamics, public budgeting and planning, and policy instrument perspectives. Given the importance of the centre of governance and optimal policy making, understanding its structure, operation, and the nature of its policy work remain important lines of inquiry.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

-

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G122)

Shifting Patterns of Executive Coordination – the EU Commission and German Federal Government compared Miriam Hartlapp, Leipzig University Nathalie Behnke, Universität Konstanz Decentering and Recentering Centres of Government and the Role of Central Agencies John Halligan, University of Canberra Incrementalism reconsidered: Policy work in the Belgian French-speaking regional ministries and agencies David Aubin, Université catholique de Louvain At the Center or Not: Institutional location of oversight bodies for regulatory impact assessment in CEE Katarina Staronova, Comenius University, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Institute of Public Policy Strengthening of central coordination in a segmented administrative system: the case of Estonian Government’s Strategy Unit Külli Sarapuu, Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology

ySession 2 -

yJonathan Craft, University of Toronto, yB. Guy Peters, University of Pittsburgh

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 18

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 18 y 126

POLICY MAKING AT THE CENTRE OF GOVERNMENT: CENTERING AND DECENTERING DYNAMICS IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G122)

Comparing Policy Work at the Center of Government Jonathan Craft, University of Toronto B. Guy Peters, University of Pittsburgh Centralization of Authority or Power-Sharing ? Explaining the Location of Policymaking Prerogatives Across Policy-Fields Margitta Mätzke, Johannes-Kepler-University Linz The Centre of Government and Evidence-based Health Policy Making: The Case of Colombia Benjamin Hawkins, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Arturo Alvarez Rosete, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine «A laboratory for the disorder?» Never-ending de-centering and re-centering in intergovernmental relations in the Italian case. Andrea Lippi, Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Florence The Best of Both Worlds? The Shared Service Center Model in the Flemish Administration Jan Boon, University of Antwerp Koen Verhoest, public administration & management group, dep. of Politics, University of Antwerp

127 X

CHAIR

yThe aim of the panel is to interrogate the complex and often

ySession 1

unexpected interplay between policy instruments, stakeholder participation and forms and practices of citizenship. Through various case studies we will explore issues around i) the changing historical trajectories of different policy instruments, ii) the complex and often paradoxical effect of participation, and iii) both the technical and political impact of policy instruments on policy outcomes. These issues will be looked at in order to map the significance of the impact of policy instrument choices on policy design, implementation and policy learning in delivering policy reforms across a variety of policy sectors such as active labour market policies, social inclusion, social security and gender equality policies.

-

-

-

y 128

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G134)

The construction of regional contracts between public health entities in Distrito Federal,Brazil: case study Leila Gottems, Escola Superior de Ciências da Saúde do Distrito Federal - Brasil Civil Society and political participation: applied of “Influence and Political Participation Index” (IPPI) Claudio Penteado, UFABC Marcelo dos Santos, UFPB Rafael Araújo, PUC-SP/FESPSP Global Variation in Legislative and Regulatory Instruments for Gender Equality Megan Arthur, WORLD Policy Analysis Center, University of California, Los Angeles Amy Raub, WORLD Policy Analysis Center, University of California Los Angeles Jody Heymann, Fielding School of Public Health; WORLD Policy Analysis Center - University of California, Los Angeles

y Session 2 -

yNoemi Lendvai, University of Bristol

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 19

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 19

POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR PUBLICS

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G134)

Models of social security reform in Latin America: the cases of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Uruguay in the 21st century Nelson Cardozo, Universidad de Buenos Aires Open method of coordination: fictions of soft governance in the EU Noemi Lendvai, University of Bristol Policy instruments and decision to withdraw from the labor market in old age Julija Moskvina, Lithuanian Social Research Centre Daiva Skučienė, Vilnius University

129 X

y Policy transfer has become an important framework for understan-

ding how policy ideas, models, methods and tools travel. The “travelling” process is not without contention and conflict and resistance, but it is an important way of understanding why policy models being adopted and promoted in Afghanistan look similar to those in Albania and Alabama. International organizations – governmental (e.g., World Bank, OECD, EU, development banks), non-governmental (e.g., Transparency International, Open Society Foundations, think tanks), and private (e.g., professional associations, consulting firms) – are all engaged in the complex process of policy transfer, particularly in transitional situations, state-building, and accession scenarios. However, despite some useful macro-models of how transfer can occur, we know relatively little about the complex micro-dynamics on the ground. For example, in any given “transfer theatre”, there are a multitude of transfer agents at work, sometimes competing, sometimes cooperating, and a multitude of recipient agencies with their own agendas. The dynamics of the interaction of these players determines how the transfer plays out – what is adopted, how it is adapted, and often whether it is successful or not in any real sense. Understanding these micro-dynamics often depends on mixed method approaches that bring anthropological, sociological, and political techniques to bear in building a coherent narrative of events and outcomes. The scientific relevance of the panel (with, we hope, several sessions) will be as follows: • Case studies of policy transfer in different contexts. We hope to get papers dealing with the EU, developed states, transitional states, state-building contexts, etc. • During the sessions, the opportunity to compare the cases and begin to draw insights into how different contexts affect the transfer process. • Attract papers on transfer agents that have to date been hardly discussed in the literature – private governance consulting firms, academic institutions • Examine the interaction effects of different transfer agents operating in the same “theatre” We will mobilise our respective networks to solicit serious paper proposals, and will negotiate with the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis for a special issue, and with either Palgrave or Routledge for an edited collection.

CHAIRS

yMagdaléna Hadjiisky, Université de Strasbourg & Sociétés, acteurs et gouvernement en Europe, CNRS

yLeslie Pal, Carleton University

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G016) Linda White, University of Toronto

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 20

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 20 y 130

POLICY TRANSFER: MICRO-MECHANICS AND MACRO-EFFECTS: INTERNATIONAL ACTORS

A Difficult Journey: The Transfer of EU Policy and Institutional Templates to Post-Soviet Countries Laure Delcour, Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme The role of European stakeholder organizations in policy transfer: social learning across governance levels in higher education Martina Vukasovic, Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent (CHEGG), Ghent University Whose ownership? The negotiations of EU-Tunisia cooperation since 1995 Federica Zardo, University of Turin Learning from the rule of law crisis? American and European experiences confronted Ramona Coman, Université libre de Bruxelles, Institute for European Studies Tetiana Kudria, Université Libre de Bruxelles

131 X

y Roundtable sponsored by the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis

At a time of increasing global policy convergenace, .this Roundtable seeks to engage in a dialogue that probes the emerging third generation of comparative policy research and the validity of comparative public policy. The Roundtable participants will relate to the following questions faced by the field:

CHAIR

ySession 1 -

yIris Geva-May, Baruch College

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G024)

Roundtable Isabelle Engeli, University of Ottawa Christoph Knill, University of Munich Marleen Brans, KU Leuven Public Governance Institute Paolo Roberto Graziano, Bocconi University Patrick Hassenteufel, University of Versailles

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 21

TOPIC 02 - PANEL 21

ROUNDTABLE: GLOBAL POLICY CONVERGENCE? NEW CHALLENGES FOR COMPARATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS METHODS

1. How does convergence affects and challenges comparative policy studies? 2. Would it be appropriate to say that the normative social sciences methodology is not applicable for policy analytic studies? And if so, to what extent? 3. If this is the case and strict social sciences methodologies are not applicable, how do we validate methods of comparative public policy if? What do we/ or should we draw, for rigor and validity from pure social sciences research? 4. How can we go beyond the prevailing perception that comparative public policy means international comparisons of item lists and enhance, through valid and reliable methods, comparative theory; comparative evaluations of research methods; and practical implications of theory-based research. How do these serve the challenges of global policy conversion?

y 132

133 X

CHAIRS

MAKING GOVERNANCE WORK: POLICY MAKING IN AN ERA OF POLARIZED POLITICS

y There are a number of common, potentially existential, policy challen-

ges confronting advanced market capitalist democracies at the dawn of the 21st Century. These threats include, among other things, growing income inequality, declining trust, economic stagnation, large cutbacks in the size and role of the public sector, increased immigration flows, ineffective financial regulation and climate change. Unfortunately and, perhaps, as a result of some of these trends, a number of these countries’ polities have become increasingly polarised politically, making consensus on needed reforms or remedies difficult or impossible to reach. This panel explores the challenges of developing and implementing public policies that address such fundamental threats in an era characterised by growing political polarization, as evidenced by populist political movements in numerous countries in North America and Western Europe.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

Both academics and practitioners need to better understand the sources of this growing political polarization as well as ways it may be managed or curtailed so that policy solutions to these threats to a sustainable, prosperous and peaceful future may be developed and implemented. Research guidelines for the panel include seeking out papers with a comparative focus so that meaningful comparisons on political polarization and policy formulation and implementation could be made across countries. Case-studies of single countries are welcome if they contribute to our generalizable knowledge. Efforts will also be made by the panel chairs to ensure an appropriate mix of studies from different countries, so that academics and practitioners can obtain a good theoretical foundation on how countries around the world deal with this issue.

DISCUSSANT -

-

-

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Santa Agnese SA112) Russell Williams, Memorial University, [email protected]

Lines in the Sand: How Americans’ Polarization Results in Unwillingness to Accept Compromise Policy Outcomes J. Cherie Strachan, Central Michigan University Daniel Shea, Colby College Michael Wolf, Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Wayne The Crisis-Induced Polarisation of EU Environmental Policy-Making: A Diachronic Comparative Analysis of Actor Constellations, Causal Mechanisms and Policy Outputs. Raffael Hanschmann, Potsdam University Comparative National Energy Policies and Climate Change Actions in Countries with Divided and Unified Governments: Reflections, Projections and Opportunities for Improved Pedagogy Thomas Rohrer, Central Michigan University Pamela Gates, Central Michigan University Polarized Climate Debate? Putting the Multi-level Games of Carbon Reduction Strategies in Perspective Russell Williams, Memorial University Susan Morrissey Wyse, Memorial University of Newfoundland Consensual Environmental Policy in the Anthropocene: Governing What Humanity Hath Wrought Robert Bartlett, University of Vermont Walter Baber, California State University, Long Beach

ySession 2

-

y 134

yDavid Jesuit, Central Michigan University, yIan Roberge, Glendon College

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 03 - POLICY&POLITICS

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA112) David Jesuit, Central Michigan University

Changing the system or being changed by the system? Mattia Zulianello, Scuola Normale Superiore Political polarization, fiscal stress and financing public universities: A comparative analysis of the Ontario and Michigan public policy experience Lawrence Sych, Central Michigan University Marcy Taylor, Central Michigan University Is economic wealth related to voter choice? A comparative analysis of affluent democracies Piotr Paradowski, Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) Lindsay Flynn, University of Virginia Mainstreaming as a means to challenge the dilemma of recognition in immigrant integration policies? Ilona van Breugel, Erasmus University Rotterdam Exploring the mediating effects of institutions on polarization and political conflict: Evidence from Michigan cities Lawrence Sych, Central Michigan University Nathan Grasse, Central Michigan University Thomas Greitens, Central Michigan University David Jesuit, Central Michigan University In Defence of Politicization: Financial Services Policymaking in the United States and Canada Ian Roberge, Glendon College

135 X

y Among the numerous issues connecting policy and politics, our panel

investigates the influence of populist parties on policy outputs. Our theoretical challenge is to enrich policy analysis and democratic theories in analysing the potential influence that populist parties –notably through discourses during electoral campaigns, and participation in government and parliament – could exert on the production of policy outputs, at different levels of power. The issue of populist parties’ influence on policies remains overlooked despite their growing political importance and current research in the “do-parties-matter” and responsiveness literatures. The panel’s empirical contribution is to go beyond the usual suspects (e.g. migration policy) and include other policy sectors. Our methodological goal is to use different approaches, quantitative and qualitative (e.g. discourse analysis, impact assessment, process-tracing) to best study the impact on populist parties on policy outputs. The purpose of the panel is to provide a state of the art of emerging research in this issue as well as to suggest avenues for further research. Specifically, our panel is interested in contributions addressing at least one of these challenges:

CHAIRS

y Session 1 DISCUSSANT -

yClaire Dupuy, University of Grenoble, yNathalie Schiffino-Leclercq, Université catholique de Louvain

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Via Lanzone VL1-03/G151) Benjamin Biard, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL)

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 02

DO POPULIST PARTIES MATTER? CHALLENGING THE LINK BETWEEN POLICY DISCOURSE AND POLICY OUTPUTS

Health Care Reform in Turkey: When and Why? Deniz Yildirim, Bilkent University Gunes Kolsuz, Bilkent University From government to full control: how democracies evolve into dictatorships Germà Bel, University of Barcelona The Impact of the Populist Radical Right on the Established Parties and their MPs. A Temporal Analysis of Election Manifestos and Private Member Bills in Sweden Niklas Bolin, Mid Sweden University The Impact of Right-Wing Populism on Taxation Policy in the United States and Canada Trevor Harrison, University of Lethbridge

• Theoretically: How analytically is the issue at hand to be handled? What do we learn from the literature at the intersection of policy analysis and political science? What avenues of research appear innovative? • Empirically: What new case studies clarify the issue? What are the respective contributions of small-N studies and large-N studies to the empirical description of the question at hand? • Methodologically: How do we identify populist parties’ policy preferences? Is data from manifestos sufficient? In addition, how do we measure policy activities? (through the analysis of policy agendas – see the comparative agenda project, public spending, choice of policy instruments?). Last, how do we assess causality between populist parties’ discourse and policy proposals and policy outputs?

y 136

137 X

y The dominant story of regulation in the postwar period involves the

dramatic expansion of new social regulations in the late 1960s and early 1970s, followed by waves of deregulation, primarily in the late 1970s and 1980s. While the movement from regulatory expansion to deregulatory retrenchment has been subject to a good deal of attention, there has not been as much attention paid to the dynamics of regulatory change in subsequent decades. Indeed, there have been few efforts to explore the post-deregulatory era as being distinct from these earlier dynamics. Since the 1990s, nations have engaged in many different experiments in regulatory design, involving, for example, management-based regulation, international standards like ISO 14001, and association-based self-regulation. In the end we are left with the following question: How do we understand an era where existing statutory authority is retained but there has never been a greater role for private sector actors in the formulation and implementation of policy?The proposed panels invite papers that are both nation-specific and comparative. We are particularly interested in those that: (1) track the dynamics of regulatory change in the past several decades; (2) explore cross-national variation, both system-wide or with an industry focus; and/or (3) consider the practical and theoretical significance of the changes in question. We invite papers that explore topics such as policy learning, regime change, and the advantages and hazards of relying on third parties in policy implementation, also referred to as “government by proxy” (Kettl) or more recently “the submerged state” (Mettler). Papers that explore agency capture (Carpentar and Moss) or regulatory breakdown (Coglianese) are also of interest, as are those that study the origins and effects of change in a particular industry, as well as those detailing system-wide change.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA115) Jeff Worsham, West Virginia University Marc Eisner, Wesleyan University

Regulatory Accumulation and Regulatory Uncertainty Stephen Jones, Mercatus Center at George Mason University Patrick McLaughlin, Mercatus Center at George Mason University Regulatory Capture: An International Comparison of the Structure of Pension Regulators John Turner, Pension Policy Center Michelle Maher, Maynooth University Gerard Hughes, Trinity College Dublin Capturing Capture Jeff Worsham, West Virginia University Franchesca Nestor, West Virginia University Canada’s First Nations Financial Transparency Act: Good Governance or Neo-Colonialism? John Kilwein, West Virginia University

ySession 2 -

yJeff Worsham, West Virginia University yMarc Eisner, Wesleyan University

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 04 y 138

THE DYNAMICS OF REGULATORY CHANGE IN A POST-DEREGULATION WORLD

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA115) Marc Eisner, Wesleyan University Jeff Worsham, West Virginia University

The post-deregulatory era in the postal industry regulating universal access in the face of electronic substitution Sandra Eckert, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Department of Social Sciences, Institute for Political Science The Macro Dynamics of Regulatory Uncertainty Samuel Workman, University of Oklahoma Financial Market Conduct Regulation in the U.K. and Canada after the Fiinancial Crisis Mary condon, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University A Regulatory change and the Role of Courts as regulatory state actors: Enhancing Accountability in a Post Deregulated world Lilac Littor, Tel Aviv University Gila Menahem, Tel-Aviv University Hadara Bar-Mor, Netanya Academic College, Israel Beyond Deregulation: Explaining the Dynamics of Contemporary Regulatory Change Marc Eisner, Wesleyan University

139 X

y Researchers in Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and

elsewhere are increasingly turning their attention to analyzing the design, implementation, and evaluation of prostitution policy in terms of discourse, discursive coalitions, governance, governmentality, unintended consequences, and spill-over effects. This panel is an opportunity to exchange knowledge among members of this growing international community of experts. Proposals should relate to one of the following areas of study: I) Design: This session focuses on the conflicts and collaborations underlying prostitution policy design and instrument choice. Typically, prostitution has been conceptualized as a public nuisance, as immoral, or as inherently exploitative, resulting in criminalisation. However, there are examples of innovative and collaborative approaches in which sex worker organizations play pivotal roles. II) Implementation: This session examines the implementation of prostitution laws by municipal governments, regional health authorities, and police departments. It also analyses the role of sex worker organizations, advocacy groups, and other civil society actors. It aims to clarify their roles and to explore the relational dynamics, which may be collaborative, agonistic, or authoritarian. III) Evaluation: This session provides an opportunity for researchers to present and discuss current evidence concerning the impacts of prostitution laws and the tools best suited for assessment. Participants will address methodological and ethical challenges such as accessing hidden, marginalized, and/or criminalised populations, collecting reliable data, and conducting comparative research.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 140

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G135) Kerry Porth, Independent

How can we avoid elitism and exclusion? Examining collaborative approaches to prostitution policy design Shawna Ferris, University of Manitoba Amy Lebovitch, Sex Professionals of Canada Cave! Hic Dragones: Negotiating the contradictory pressures of sex-work policy making Leslie Jeffrey, University of New Brunswick Saint John Comparing prostitution regimes: morality policy change in New South Wales, AUS and England, UK Giulia Zampini, University of Kent Lights, Camera, Policy? Examining celebrity-driven anti-sex trafficking campaigns Samantha Majic, John Jay College-City University of New York

ySession 2 -

yGenevieve Fuji Johnson, Simon Fraser University yHendrik Wagenaar, The University of Sheffield yLeslie Jeffrey, University of New Brunswick Saint John

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 05

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 05

PROSTITUTION POLICY AND SEX WORK GOVERNANCE – DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G135) Hendrik Wagenaar, University of Sheffield

Variation in Canadian social and legal environments related to the implementation of prostitution laws: Exploring how place matters Frances M Shaver, Concordia Univeresity Bill Reimer, Concordia University Mikael Jansson, Unviersity of Victoria Lauren Casey, University of Victoria Representation in Sex Work Research: A Case Study of Developing More Inclusive Sample and Recruitment Protocols Victoria Bungay, University of British Columbia The Governance of Sex Work: Substantive and Theoretical Insights from Canada Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Simon Fraser University, Analyzing and evaluating recent prostitution policy change in Canada: The value of robust measures and a rigorous methodology Mikael Jansson, Unviersity of Victoria Chris Atchison, University of Victoria Cecilia Benoit, University of Victoria Lauren Casey, University of Victoria Exploring variation in the implementation of prostitution laws by Canadian police Cecilia Benoit, University of Victoria Frances M Shaver, Concordia Univeresity Bill Reimer, Concordia University Mikael Jansson, Unviersity of Victoria

141 X

y Policy processes for the building of railway stations, airports, power

plants, railway routes and other large projects often run into violent struggles. Some projects with similar conflict constellations have been decided on a low level of conflict, though. The respective level of escalation of policy processes for large infrastructure and building projects can be related to manifold explanations. Comparative politics stresses the patterns of the political systems (Lijphart 2012) and differences of policies and arenas (Lowi 1972, 2009). Case studies of policy processes may shed light on constellations of advocacy coalitions, devil shift of conflicting parties, the role of policy brokers, and policy-oriented learning (Sabatier/ Jenkins-Smith 1993; Sabatier/Weible 2007; Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014, Biegelbauer 2013). Political psychology is interested in the role of individual actors by applying the “big five” personality dimensions or similar lenses (Bandelow/Thies 2014). Papers should address at least one of the following questions:

CHAIRS

University of Braunschweig

yPeter Biegelbauer, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Santa Agnese SA015) Kirstin Lindloff, Braunschweig University Department of Social Sciences Colette Sophie Vogeler, Technische Universität Braunschweig

«Useless, Imposed Large Projects» in France: When Participation does not prevent Escalation… Cécile Blatrix, AgroParisTech Psychological predictors of (non-violent) behavioural escalation of civil-protestants Barbara Thies, Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie, TU Braunschweig Florian Henk, Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie, TU Braunschweig Melanie Misamer, Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie, TU Braunschweig Nils C. Bandelow, Institute for Social Sciences, University of Braunschweig Who is to participate—and how? Managing inter-territorial conflicts on infrastructure projects of overall interest in federations Sabine Kropp, Freie Universität Berlin

ySession 2 -

1. How can the concept of “escalation“ be defined theoretically and translated into empirical research? Which factors cause escalation (and/or de-escalation) theoretically? 2. How do institutional settings of political systems influence the likelihood of escalation and de-escalation? 3. How do policies, especially different types of large projects, different levels of scientific and political consensus about costs and benefits and different distributions of costs and benefits influence the process of escalation and de-escalation?

yNils C. Bandelow, Institute for Social Sciences,

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 06

LEGITIMACY, PARTICIPATION AND ESCALATION IN THE COURSE OF POLICY PROCESSES FOR LARGE BUILDING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA015) Kirstin Lindloff, Braunschweig University Department of Social Sciences Colette Sophie Vogeler, Technische Universität Braunschweig

Plan falling into place Helena Leino, University of Tampere Media coverage as a trigger of escalation? Agenda-setting and framing in the case of the infrastructure project “Stuttgart 21” Thomas Eisenmann, University of Braunschweig Kirstin Lindloff, Braunschweig University (Germany), Department of Social Sciences Participatory processes and conflicts de-escalation. Evidences from two Italian large projects. Gianfranco Pomatto, University of Turin Consultations in energy policy – institutional de-escalation or Eva Ruffing, University of Hannover Simon Fink, University of Bamberg

Which conditions enable de-escalation by elements of direct democracy and public participation within the decision-making process?

y 142

143 X

y This panel examines delegated agencies, and more specifically, their

governance style, engagement and coordination with, and of, broader publics. Recent literature in (multi-level) governance has recognized that delegated agencies perform important roles in actively facilitating the construction of policy fields, their (meta) regulation, learning across jurisdictions, and sometimes their democratisation. These are generally expert organizations with specialist knowledge of policy fields. By delegated agencies we mean semi-autonomous agencies at arms-length from the core of government by virtue of legislation or executive arrangement. Located at the intermediary between central government and broader publics (including professionals, industry, NGOs, service users, citizens and other agencies), delegated agencies are strategically placed to engage policy communities, also across jurisdictional boundaries. Such engagement may include public consultations with stakeholders in the process of policy making, the explanation and justification of policies in the media, and facilitating exchanges about ‘best practices’ across differently placed policy actors and policy communities. It is an activity that comes, however, with perils particularly for delegated agencies themselves, as it challenges representative democracy and traditional notions of accountability. Delegated agencies engaging the public creates new political spaces for mobilising the commitment of publics to government initiatives, for policy learning, for contesting and reforming initiatives, and for, better or worse, informing the credibility and legitimacy of delegated agencies themselves. The panel seeks papers that both theoretically and empirically examine, compare, and critically interrogate delegated agencies engagement of publics. It is interested in papers that adopt broadly political, sociological, pragmatic learning or rhetorical perspectives to analyse the way in which delegated agencies actively present themselves, and their functions or government policies, to broader publics, whether to facilitate learning or policy commitment. Beyond the nature of agencies’ engagement with publics, there is also an interest in conceptualizing and examining the conditions for maintaining agency credibility and legitimacy among the public, and their function in facilitating democratic deliberation.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

yAmanda Smullen, Australian National University yMatt Wood, University of Sheffield

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G114) Joachim Blatter, University of Lucerne

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 07

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 07 y 144

EXAMINING THE LEGITIMATION STRATEGIES OF DELEGATED AGENCIES

The agents within the Troika - approaches to legitimacy Max Lüggert, Bonn University Building Political Legitimacy and Responding to ‘Legitimation Crises’: A Case Study of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority Paul Fawcett, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis Matt Wood, University of Sheffield Delegated agencies and their publics in Australian healthcare Amanda Smullen, Australian National University Second tier, second thoughts – why it turns out to be so difficult for EIOPA to create a single market for private pensions Frieder Wolf, Institut fuer Politische Wissenschaft Georg Wenzelburger, TU Kaiserslautern

145 X

y Social movements, NGOs and civil society organizations are strongly

affected by public policies and, at the same time, they can contribute to change them. For many decades, social movements have been studied primarily from an organizational and communication perspective, whereas public policy analysts have rarely considered the relevance of social movement actions and strategies in terms of policy change. Recently, though, some bridges between two growing strands of the political science literature have been built and the policy outcomes of social movements activities are increasingly investigated. The panel is aimed at further exploring and consolidating such fertile contamination by bringing together scholars which are interested in focusing on the policy impact of social movements, with particular reference to the policy agenda and formulation phases. We welcome both theoretical and empirical (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods) contributions on environmental, urban and social policies. We are interested both in substantive impact (e.g. when objectives, principles, etc. of social movements are incorporated into the content of the policy) and in procedural impact (e.g. when specific procedures change by virtue of social movements’ influence, such as in the case of participatory decision-making modes.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 146

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G115) Matteo Bassoli, eCampus Online University

Agenda setting: where is the space for civil society organizations? Case study of housing policy in a State of Brazil Alexandre Matos Drumond, CEFET/RJ / Suely de Fátima Ramos Silveira, Universidade Federal de Viçosa Tensions in the Deliberative System Civil Society Organizations and the “Fracking” Controversy Jennifer Dodge, Rockefeller College/University at Albany Policy Outcomes of Social Movements in Taiwan: Issue Orientation, Party System and Strategic Interaction Huang-ting Yan, National Taiwan University

ySession 3 -

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G115) Matteo Bassoli, eCampus Online University

Articulating & Aggregating Sectarian Interests: Struggle for Alevi Religious Education in Turkey and Germany Ayse Ezgi Gurcan, Mercator-IPC / Sabanci University Criticism or Collaboration – Impact NGOs on Public Policy in the Czech Republic Karel Cada, Institute of Sociological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague / Katerina Ptackova, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague Beyond the Dichotomy Between Social Movements and the State: the case of public health Patrick Fafard, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

ySession 2 -

yPaolo Roberto Graziano, Bocconi University, yManuela Caiani, SNS-Florence

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 08

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 08

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND POLICY ANALYSIS: THEORETICAL CHALLENGES AND EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G115) Matteo Bassoli, eCampus Online University

Do feminists still matter? Work/family reconciliation policies at the European Level Sophie van der Dussen, Université Libre de Bruxelles The New Politics of Development: Citizens, Civil Society and the Evolution of Neoliberal Development Policy Darryl Jarvis, Hong Kong Institute of Education Toby Carroll, City University of Hong Kong The challenges of representation for new social movements in policymaking David Edwards, University of Texas at Austin

147 X

y The call encourages theoretical and empirical papers that contribute

to the debate about actual and prospective linkages and conflicts between climate change and associated policy responses (mitigation or adaptation) on the one hand and the welfare state on the other. The main motivation for examining in tandem the two policy fields is that “[i]ssues are becoming increasingly ‘cross-cutting’, and do not fit the ministerial boxes into which governments, and policy analysts, tend to place policies” (Peters, 1998: 296). Climate change is a prominent example of a modern policy dilemma that should not be dealt with as part of environmental policy only. The IPCC’s messages have become increasingly alarming and unequivocal about the effects climate change will have not only for the natural environment but also on society (www.ipcc.ch).

CHAIRS

yMi Ah Schoyen, NOVA Norwegian Social Research, Oslo & Akershus University College

yMax Koch, Lund University

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

Wednesday, July 1st 16.00 - 18.00 (Gemelli G113) Milena Buchs, University of Southampton

The Theory of Sustainable Welfare and the Welfare State Max Koch, Lund University Susan Sterett, Virginia Tech Micro-¬foundations of the eco-¬social state: A multi-level analysis of attitudes towards the environment and income redistribution Mi Ah Schoyen, NOVA Norwegian Social Research, Oslo & Akershus University College Is energy vulnerability an unavoidable consequence of climate mitigation? A multilevel-longitudinal analysis on how energy poverty is related to climate policy and the welfare state Andre Schaffrin, EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment

TOPIC 03 - PANaEL 09

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 09

CONNECTING THE DOTS BETWEEN CLIMATE POLICY AND SOCIAL POLICY: NORMATIVE AND EMPIRICAL CONDITIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL WELFARE STATES (AKA ECO-SOCIAL STATES)

In contrast to the impacts of globalisation and population ageing, the implications of climate change have been largely ignored by scholarship on the welfare state. Though there is much evidence that climate change will qualitatively alter the social policy agenda (Gough et al, 2008), more research is needed on the climate-social policy nexus in the context of different economic growth models. We invite papers going in several directions including: • Conceptual/theoretical discussions of the linkages between climate change and associated policies on the one hand and the welfare state and social policies on the other. We particularly welcome papers that deal with these linkages in the context of different economic growth models and notions of justice (social, environmental, intergenerational). • Comparative assessments of policy output and outcomes relating to the two policy fields. • Papers that seek to identify the determinants of environmental and social policies as substitutes (trade-off hypothesis) or complements (synergy hypothesis) • Papers addressing the likely public acceptability and political implications of different policy solutions (based on e.g. social survey data). y 148

149 X

CHAIRS

y The study of narratives has a long and rich history in the field of public

ySession 1

policy. This body of work engenders a range of epistemological approaches, from interpretive and contextually based (e.g., discursive politics) to the more quantitatively oriented (e.g., Narrative Policy Framework). In turn, the accompanying assortment of narrative methodologies has been used in the analysis of a broad array of substantive public policies at multiple scales and in a variety of contexts. This diversity of approach and policy substance has produced conceptions of policy narratives that invoke diverse theoretical and philosophical traditions and varied operational protocols. While many of these approaches to the study of policy narratives converge, there are also critically important areas of divergence. In the interest of illuminating these points of convergence and divergence, the Policy Narratives and Public Policy panel invites interested scholars to submit papers that take seriously the role of policy narratives in shaping public policy design, processes, and outputs. All methodologies and approaches are welcome as well as are all substantive policy foci.

DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 150

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Santa Agnese SA114) Tanya Heikkila, University of Colorado Denver

From discourses to policy. Analyzing the creation of an accountability discourse in Colombia. Carolina Isaza, Universidad Externado de Colombia The astounding rise of the Energy Transformation narrative: an analysis of the German political energy discourse Anna Leipprand, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change Christian Flachsland, Mercator Research Intitute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) Michael Pahle, PIK Potsdam PISA narratives and their use in direct democratic campaigns on school policy Caroline Schlaufer, University of Bern

ySession 2 -

yElizabeth Shanahan, Montana State University yMichael Jones, Oregon State University

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 10

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 10

POLICY NARRATIVES AND PUBLIC POLICY

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA114) Elizabeth Shanahan, Montana State University

The Narrative Properties of Ideology Jennifer Dodge, Rockefeller College/University at Albany Raul Lejano, New York University Competing policy narratives and the government of the Rhône River (France) Joana GUERRIN, UMR Art-Dev, Montpellier Sylvain Barone, Irstea Stories Governments Tell: The Politics of Narratives and Social Policy in Singapore Azad Singh Bali, Murdoch University Peter Waring, Murdoch University Tania Patricia Lim, Murdoch University (Singapore campus) Incremental transformations in Brazilian system of protected areas: changing narratives and policies over the last four years Flavia Donadelli, London School of Economics and Political Science

151 X

y To explore the political nature of public policy is to diverge from the

approaches that have been predominant. However, in the context of globalisation and growing complexity within societies, it has become increasingly apparent that the challenges facing public policy are international and intractable. It is no longer enough for public policy to seek to reduce the constraints on government; rather it faces a society that is more complex, social problems that are increasingly unsolvable, and stakeholder networks that recast governments as guides. These realisations highlight the inadequacy of incremental policy processes, as well as the unlikelihood that traditional approaches can reach their lofty aims. The recent work of Philippe Zittoun (2014) directly challenges these traditionally predominant views. By reasserting the political character of public policy, he explores the dynamics that shape the struggle over contemporary policymaking, as actors seek to create, define, propagate and legitimise their power through competing policy actions. In recognition of Zittoun’s contribution, this panel invites applications inspired by his theses in the form of international case studies. This panel is open to all research that takes policymaking to be as much a succession of political actions to contribute to legitimacy, as it is any success in solving policy problems. Case studies that rely on discursive struggles and those that draw on critical materialist traditions are both encouraged. These cases may be examples from within majoritarian systems, where political ‘logrolling’ is a conventional practice used within policymaking. They may include examples from systems where the increased prevalence of coalitions or minority government is challenging assumptions about legitimacy. Alternatively, they may include international examples in policy areas that are particularly susceptible to influence by symbolic politics. What this panel aims to provide is empirical evidence for a growing area of study within contemporary public policy.

y 152

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

yBrenton Prosser, ANU yMaïmouna NDONG-ETROIT, Science Po Grenoble

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G135) Philippe Zittoun, LET-ENTPE

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 11

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 11

INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF POLICYMAKING

Protecting Southern Forests and Northern Markets – An Analysis of the emergence of the global regime against illegal logging Sina Leipold, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg Metodi Sotirov, Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy, University of Freiburg Theresa Frei, University of Freiburg, Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy Georg Winkel, University of Freiburg Transport policy making in the metropolization of Lyon and Marseille: an analysis through the “definitional struggles” Maïmouna Ndong-Etroit, Science Po Grenoble Assessing the impact of the political process of policymaking on enduring but weak policy regimes: The case of the contemporary French prostitution policy regime (1970-2014) Emily St Denny, Nottingham Trent University The politics of Australian climate change policy: the case of three Prime Ministers Brenton Prosser, ANU

153 X

y Universal Health Coverage (UHC) has witnessed growing salience

in the global health policy agenda, and is zealously promoted by global health agencies as a hallmark of governments’ commitment to sustainable development and poverty reduction. However, there is confusion on the scope and mandate of the private for-profit sector, and UHC is often criticised for serving as a vehicle for expanding privatisation through private health financing, management and service delivery. Yet, the evidence substantiating this claim remains poorly synthesized and/or substantiated. This session seeks evidence on the scope and effectiveness of the commercial sector (and the paradigm of public private partnerships) in achieving UHC in LMICs. We invite abstracts for papers reporting findings of empirical research to critically examine the role of the private sector, the scope of public-private interactions, and their implications for the agenda of UHC. Submissions should examine evidence to address one or more of the following questions. 1. What is the evidence on the roles and effectiveness of the formal and informal for-profit sectors in achieving UHC? What functions can they best serve? 2. What is the evidence of private financing and/ or service provision in the achievement of UHC and addressing health equity? 3. What is the significance of health markets and commercialization for health systems, in the context of UHC? 4. How effective is public sector stewardship for the regulation of the private for profit sector?

y 154

CHAIRS

yAnuj Kapilashrami, Global Public Health Unit, University of Edinburgh

yMohga Kamal-Yanni, Oxfam yJessica Hamer, Oxfam GB

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS

-

-

‘Some health care for some people, some of the time’ - A study of the engagement of Private sector by the government of Karnataka, India Prasanna Saligram, Janaarogya Andolana Karnataka Asha Kilaru, Independent Sudha Nagavarapu, Society for People’s Action for Development Improving Healthcare in Rural Communities in Nigeria: How May Patent Medicine Vendors Be Effectively Engaged? Iornumbe Usar, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh Achieving universal health coverage in East and Southern Africa: what role for for-profit providers? Jane Doherty, School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand

ySession 2 DISCUSSANTS -

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Via Nirone NI111) Mark Hellowell, University of Edinburgh Rama Baru, Jawaharlal Nehru University

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 13

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 13

PRIVATE SECTOR AND UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE: EXAMINING EVIDENCE AND DECONSTRUCTING RHETORIC

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Nirone NI111) Mark Hellowell, University of Edinburgh Rama Baru, Jawaharlal Nehru University

Private Health Care Providers in India: a critical perspective Indranil Mukhopadhyay, Public Health Foundation of India The Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme in Kerala(CHIS): An exploratory study in Kollam District ( Kerala, India). Jisha Jayasree, Jawahar Lal Nehru University What is the role of informal health care providers in achieving universal health care coverage? Lessons from Bangladesh Shehrin Mahmood, ICDDR,B Sabrina Rasheed, ICDDR,B Md. Shahidul Hoque,ICDDR,B SMA Hanifi, ICDDR,B

155 X

yMartino Mazzoleni, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Department of Political Science

yNicola Pasini, Università degli Studi di Milano

y The panel, which will necessarily adopt a comparative approach, wel-

comes papers (both quantitative and qualitative) focusing on processes of formulation and implementation of changes in the ‘rules of the political game’. The papers may concern different levels of governance (from the local to the national and supra-national) and touch upon the institutional and decision-making settings of specific policy sectors, as well as centre on the usefulness of mechanisms commonly used in the literature to describe and theorise constituent policies. Possible topics, hence, may be the following: • Public participation in reforming institutions and public administration • Institutional reform and policy change: which relationships? • Institutional performance and institutional reform • Public administration performance and structural change • Administrative traditions and reforms: practices and challenges • The challenges in comparing administrative and institutional change • The role of policy innovators and entrepreneurs in processes of institutional change

y 156

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

Procedural Policy Change, Institutional Reforms and the evolution of conflicts of interest policies in Canada and France Luc Juillet, University of Ottawa “Layering” as a Mode of Institutional Change: National Civic Service in Israel 1996-2014 Etta Bick, Ariel University The Complexity of Anti-corruption Policy: the Analysis of the l. 190/2012 in Italy Jacopo Costa, University of Turin

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

-

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Via Lanzone VL1-03/G151) Nicola Pasini, Università degli Studi di Milano

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 15

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 15

THE POLICY OF INSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G112) Martino Mazzoleni, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Department of Political Science

The National Program of Public Management and Debureaucratization (GesPública) in Brazil: a case of policy domain in a setting of institutional and administrative change Eduardo Grin, Fundaçao Getulio Vargas Strategic Reactions Against Institutional Reforms: The Shared Service Center Reform in the Flemish Administration Jan Boon, University of Antwerp Koen Verhoest, public administration & management group, dep. of Politics, University of Antwerp The Ideas Rather Than the Actors? The Institutional Reform of the French School Administration Xavier Pons, University of East Paris CRéteil

157 X

y Since 2013, the EU has promoted a new active social policy strategy,

inspired by the experiences of some Nordic countries: the Youth Guarantee (YG). The YG aims to combat the phenomenon of young NEETS, providing to all people under 25 years old an educational, training or job offer within 4 months after finishing their studies or becoming unemployed. Given the specific target population of the YG and its focus on prevention or at least early intervention, the YG appears an interesting field of research for the analysis of social investment policies “at work”. This panel focuses on the implementation of national YG programs with the aim of bridging the literature on social welfare theory, social policy administration and intergovernmental relations. In particular, we encourage contributions addressed to: a. the analysis of governance structures and implementation arrangements of the YG, ranging from the models of interagency cooperation and service provision to street-level implementation practices; b. the analysis of the first achievements or shortcomings of the YG programs, questioning their capacity to provide adequate responses to new challenges facing the new generations.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA325) Ludo Struyven, University of Leuven, Research Institute for Work and Society

Opening the Black Box of the Social Investment Welfare State: a first overview of the Youth Guarantee in Italy Patrik Vesan, University of Aosta Valley The Youth Guarantee – a successful example of Social Investment ALMP or business as usual? Margherita Bussi, European Trade Union Institute Paolo Roberto Graziano, Bocconi University Implementing Active Labour Market Policies for youth – institutional contexts and incidences of social investment features Lisa Andersson, Department of social work, Stockholm University

ySession 2 -

yPatrik Vesan, University of Aosta Valley yPaolo Roberto Graziano, Bocconi University

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 16

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 16

ACTIVE LABOUR MARKET POLICIES AND THE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT WELFARE STATE: THE YOUTH GUARANTEE PROGRAMS IN EUROPE

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA325) Ludo Struyven, University of Leuven, Research Institute for Work and Society

Youth Guarantee measures in employment strategies of disadvantaged youth in European cities Jana Valkova, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies Anne-Marie Gehrke, Hamburg University of applied science Implementation of the Youth Guarantee initiative in the Czech Republic and impact evaluation of its key component – the Internship Program for Young People Markéta Nekolová, Fund of Continuing Education Martin Nekola, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences European youth guarantee – Mechanisms for involvement and influence of EU stakeholder in the development of the initiative Renate Minas, department of social work, Stockholm University

Contributions should add new insights into the tensions and problems of the “real world of the SI welfare state”, looking at the specific configuration of power which are at stake in the implementation of the YG and at the operational conditions affecting social investment policies, beyond the simple rechanneling of spending priorities.

y 158

159 X

y

The lack of combination of policy and politics analysis may threaten to weaken an holistic comprehension of public policy processes, particularly if one considers that this may be an heuristic entry point to study the state and its action in the Global South. Furthermore, employing research methods and tools produced in and for Northen countries raises the question of their adaptability to global South’s historical and political contexts. In the light of our concern for theoretical and methodological challenges that scholars who work on policy making processes in the Global South may encounter, we call for papers focusing, on one hand, on empirical findings, and the other, on methodological insights. The first type of papers ideally wish to analyse the combination of policy analysis and political analysis at each stage of the policy process, from agenda setting, to the identification of alternatives, weighing up the options, choosing the favorable solutions and implementing it. As a premise, it is worth noting that we sollicit actor-centred analysis in order to emphasise the politics surrounding public policy. Therefore, we encourage case studies on countries fron the Global South that analyse: • the formulation process of public policy, and more particularly the confrontational dialogue of ideas, societal projects and interests built around the debated problems, putting in perspective the national with the international political contexts; • the power relations among state and non-state actors involved in the policy making process. What are the underlying power dynamics and how are they built? • the methods, instruments and strategies used by state and non state actors to politicized the policy at national and local level; • the relationship between the nature of the political regime and the policy process; • the influence of international paradigms, expertise, and aid actors regarding the debated problem, the policy making process, as well as the networks, alliances and coalitions constructed ad hoc. Secondly, we call for papers questioning the adaptability of tools conventionally employed for public policies analysis, conceptualized by and for Northern countries’ case studies but used in the Global South. Therefore, we encourage papers that, on one hand, discuss the challenges scholars face when using those Northern conceptual tools and methodologies for Global South’s case studies, and on the other hand, that propose the use of new theoretical framework and methodological tools to better apprehend public action in the Global South.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

yLauriane Gay, Montpellier 1 yFrancesca DI Matteo, EHESS, Marseille

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL2-05) Francesca DI Matteo, EHESS, Marseille Lauriane Gay, Montpellier 1

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 18

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 18 y 160

THE POLITICS SURROUNDING PUBLIC POLICY IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

Political Economy of Program Design and Government Reform: Evidence from a Decentralization Program from Asian Development Bank in Pakistan Mohammed Rehan Malik, Karachi School of Business and Leadership Migration, Politics and Policy in “Post-neoliberal” Ecuador William Herrera, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Bipolar Partyarchy and Political Elites in a Transitional State: Role of Actors in Civilian Security Sector (Police) Reform in Bangladesh Niloy Biswas, City University London Analysing transnational policymaking through the theoretical lens of state building in Tanzania. A comparative study of higher education and land policies. Olivier Provini, Université de Pau et des Pays des l’Adour; Les Afriques dans le Monde Sina Schlimmer, Sciences Po Bordeaux

161 X

y Crises have been said to provide politicians with a ‘window of opportunity’ to ‘depoliticise’an issue, but this process often has important consequences – including providing an opportunity for opposition groups to depoliticisation the subject. Earlier work on repoliticise has been criticized as being overly focused on a ‘top down approach’ as well as neglecting important counter-processes of politicisation/repoliticisation. We are, therefore, looking for papers addressing: i) how the recent crisis impacts on ongoing processes of depoliticization; ii) the manifestation of discontent to these processes, and; iii) (the variation in) the extent to which actors successfully repoliticise crisis issues. In particular, we welcome papers seeking to uncover the nature of domestic bargaining that takes place under the shadow of austerity and the dynamics of a discourse of ‘no alternative’. Secondly, we welcome studies linking this process to manifestations of its discontent, such as declines in trust, abstentionism, protest movements or rise in populist parties. Examples of relevant questions are: Do policy-makers scapegoat the EU or the Troika to pass preferred reforms? Which groups mobilise to resist reforms? Which groups get heard and which are ignored? Why are some countries so diligent in embraceing reforms while others are reluctant? Does the economic crisis undermine democratic accountability, and if so through which mechanisms? Is discourse strategically shaped to convince voters that there is no alternative? Is the increase of abstentionism a direct consequence of this process? What can explain variation in the occurrence, intensity and/or influence of protest movements?

y 162

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

yAdam Standring, Universidade Nova de Lisboa yCatherine Moury, FCSH-NOVA Universityt

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G115)

German and UK Energy Politicisations: An Exploration of the Relationships between Crisis, Embedded Institutions and Change Caroline Kuzemko, University of Exeter, UK Comparing the impact of bad economic conditions on agenda dynamics across time Laura Chaqués Bonafont, University of Barcelona and IBEI Depolitization and Crisis: The Politics of Education Infrastructure Renewal in a Post-Disaster Context Patrick Barrett, The University of Waikato Construction of ‘no alternative’ discourse and its ‘alternatives’ after the outbreak of the crisis: The case of the Czech Republic Katerina Merklova, Charles University in Prague Immigration Policy in an Age of Crisis & Austerity: Politics and the Neoliberalization of Immigration Policy Susan Barrass, Ryerson University John Shields, Ryerson University

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 19

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 19

DEPOLITICIZATION & CRISIS: CONTINGENCY AND CONTESTATION IN THE FACE OF POLICY FAILURE

163 X

y Roundtable on Theoretical Perspectives on the Politics of Policymaking

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

ySteven Smith, American Political Science Association yCatherine Moury, FCSH-NOVA Universityt

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G108)

Roundtable Helen M Ingram, University of California at Irvine Peter Hupe, Dept. of Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam Steven Smith, American Political Science Association Robert Kent Weaver, Georgetown University

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 20

TOPIC 03 - PANEL 20 y 164

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE POLITICS OF POLICYMAKING

165 X

yPatrik Marier, Concordia University, yB. Guy Peters, University of Pittsburgh yMireille Paquet, Concordia University

THE PROBLEM OF POLICY PROBLEMS

y This panel seeks to engage exchanges and discussions surrounding

four core issues related to policy problems. First, this panel welcomes contributions focusing on the conceptualisation and the measurement of policy problems. Different definitions of what constitutes a policy problem create inevitable theoretical, methodological and epistemological tensions for the analysis of policy problems. Do these different definitions and interpretations complement each other? Can these tensions be reconciled, or do they act as barriers in the development of the policy problem literature? Second, this panel will consider the influence of existing of policy problems classifications on current research and their heuristic potential. Few contributions have developed elaborate tables isolating specific characteristics of policy problems. How do these inform current understanding of policy problems and do they facilitate research? Should existing classifications be modified? Papers could also examine the influence of existing classifications on policy work and activism in different contexts. Third, we encourage contributions on policy actors involved in the identification of policy problem that analyse their subsequent impact for the policy-making process. Potential correlations between actors involved in policy learning, and those that play a key role in identifying and constructing policy problems could be considered. In addition, the inclusion of non-traditional actors in subsystems or specific coalitions, following their role in problem definition should be addressed. Fourth, the panel focuses on the connection between policy problems and policy instruments. Can specific instances of problem definition break away from instrument-legacy in some policy sectors and, if so, under what conditions? How does problem definition centered on a particular instrument and its implementation impact subsequent instrument selection? Other types of contributions centered on policy problems will also be considered. Please note that although the organizers prefer comparative contributions, we welcome all kinds of empirical studies (case studies, qualitative/quantitative studies, textual analysis, etc…).

y 166

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

Weighty Matters: The Affective Politics of Obesity as a Policy Problem Michael Orsini, School of Political Studies “Immigration federalism” as a policy problem in Canada, Australia and the United States Mireille Paquet, Concordia University What’s the problem with population aging? A classification of policy problems Patrik Marier, Concordia University

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G022) B. Guy Peters, University of Pittsburgh

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 04 - PUBLIC, PROBLEM AND AGENDA SETTING

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G022) Patrik Marier, Concordia University

Understanding Policy Problems: A Refinement of Past Work John Hoornbeek, Kent State University How Wicked are Wicked Problems?: Dimensions of Policy Problems B. Guy Peters, University of Pittsburgh A comparative examination of policy changes in response to crises and policy failues John Hogan, Dublin Institute of Technology

167 X

y

The place of knowledge in the policymaking process has been extensively studied by the social sciences. The objective of the panel is to consider, conversely, the place of ignorance in policymaking, i.e. the fact that certain kinds of issues are systematically left out of consideration by policymakers, while other actors consider they should deserve attention. This question is not entirely new in political science: several authors, from different research traditions, have addressed “agenda denial” as a counter-process to agenda-setting or the processes of invisibilisation of social problems. However, there has recently been a growing amount of literature on the question of the social production of ignorance within the framework of Science and Technology Studies. Several authors have insisted on its political nature by integrating it into the “new political sociology of science” (Frickel & Moore, 2006). This literature has described the social mechanisms which make it possible to understand why certain types of knowledge are not produced or not considered worthy: logics proper to academic circles, rules in force in institutional arenas of expertise and the uneven social and spatial distribution of certain nuisances which more strongly affect populations who are very unlikely to complain. Taking into account this literature, this panel aims at providing an opportunity to discuss the role of ignorance in the policymaking process from a methodological and case study standpoint. In order to do so, empirical papers employing qualitative or quantitative methods are welcome. Ideally, the panel will be divided into three sections. First, we expect papers which focus on the structural, technical and institutional mechanisms which produce ignorance. For example, some papers could revisit in this perspective some subjects such as the manufacturing of official statistics and public indicators, or the problem-definition processes in the public sphere. A second set of papers would deal with the strategic uses of ignorance by the policymakers and all the actors who try to influence the policymaking process. These strategies may consist in efforts to deny, or at least play down, certain bodies of knowledge and standpoints, or, on the contrary, in ignorance claims. For instance, some papers could study the way ignorance – e.g. the uneven circulation of information – is deliberately organised in some public institutions. Third, papers addressing specific methodological questions on assessing the role of ignorance are very welcome. What materials and types of surveys are used to demonstrate the production of ignorance or its strategic use? How can we assign intentionality to actors or organisations, or, conversely, determine that some actions or consequences were unintentional? From what evidence can we determine that an issue was rejected, ignored or undervalued? Though these papers could discuss methodological issues extensively, all the papers presented in the panel are expected to address them.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA115) Didier Torny, INRA

Production and mobilization of (non-) knowledge in public policies elaboration: the case of veterinary medicines regulation Nicolas Fortané, INRA Louise Dangy, Sciences Po Lyon Occupational health in France – A public policy sector of which the invisibility and inertia are related to the forms of production of knowledge and ignorance Emmanuel Henry, University of Paris-Dauphine ‘No man’s Land’- fragmentations and the privatisation of responsibility in the regulation of first in-human clinical trials in the UK Shadreck Mwale, University of Brighton

ySession 2 -

yMarc-Olivier Déplaude, INRA yDidier Torny, INRA

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 02 y 168

REASSESSING THE ROLE OF IGNORANCE IN POLICYMAKING

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA115) Marc-Olivier Déplaude, INRA

Public management of risks related to PCBs in the river Rhone (France) and the reproduction of ignorance Christelle Gramaglia, IRSTEA Marc Babut, IRSTEA Lyon-Villeurbanne Ignorance Claims as a Call to Action: The Case of Neglected Tropical Diseases Sudeepa Abeysinghe, University of Edinbugh The Political Construction of Ignorance and Public (in)action. How the biggest Shantytown of Europe (Madrid) has been voluntarily hidden to deny agendas Thomas Aguilera, Sciences Po Paris Studying the Social Construction of Public “Sayability”: a Policy Sociology Approach of the French Education Sector Xavier Pons, University of East Paris CRéteil

169 X

CHAIRS

yNina Belyaeva, Higher School of Economics yNick Mahony, The Open University yGiuseppe Mastruzzo, International University College of Turin

y For this panel we expect papers on three different aspects: focused

on concept theory, focused on last decade mass protests and focused on different publics as new social actors. In the first type of papers we will strongly encourage those authors who are interested in elaborateing on the problem of “the life of the concept” : emergence of the new concept, its full development, its further maturity, its gradual going out of date and inability to explain social events at list it does not cover all cases across the globe). The examples here might be – the Geo-centric system of universe, the Marxist concept of the “economic basis of political life “, Fukuyama’s concept of the “end of history” and among recent ones, though may still having its followers –“ transition theory”. In theoretical papers it would be very important to follow the changing scope of views of the theory backed up by examples in academic literature and equally important – in policy papers. The second type of papers we welcome to this panel are those focused on latest nation-wide protests in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, Brazil, Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria. But with the specific focus: in which cases those protests did resemble “traditional social movements - with all features described by Tilly and Tarrow, particularly with the all the stages of the movement development from the active nucleus to spreading , dissemination and mass consolidation, and in which cases those protests do not have features of social movement, but resemble other types of social organizations: network of local communities, interest groups, spontaneous publics, support groups of certain political actors. The third type of papers we welcome - should be on phenomena of the public as a social actor –despite its often spontaneous nature, its ability to consolidate and express common social needs, and to formulate alternative policy agendas. The combination of three types of contributions will help us to see if whether - and to what extent – latest mass social and political protests are allowing us to formulate a different concept – the one of “protesting public”.

ySession 1 -

-

Beyond representative democracy: Mass protest as cognitive participation Giuseppe Mastruzzo, International University College of Turin Protest Public as a Social Actor: from mosaic of “issue-based groups” to the unity of “the other world possible” Nina Belyaeva, Higher School of Economics Sanjay rajhans, Higher School of Economics Who does the Devil Shift? Predictors for Demonizing Opponents in an Escalated Conflict Colette Sophie Vogeler, Technische Universität Braunschweig Nils C. Bandelow, Institute for Social Sciences, University of Braunschweig, The Challenges Of Representation For New Social Movements In Policymaking David Edwards, University of Texas at Austin

y Session 2 -

-

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA015)

From dissatisfaction to disagreement: how the critical mass comes out (Russian case) Yulia Baskakova, Institute of sociology, Russian academy of science New Ukrainian identity retrieved from the discourse of Maidan: targeting the audience or establishing the public? Anna Potsar, National Research Univercity Higher School of Economics “Protest Publics” in Egypt and Turkey from 2011 till present days: Assessment of Impact on Political Changes Alexander Anufriev, Higher School of Economics Hamid Ait El Caid, Higher School of Economics Tatiana Zagumennaia, National Research University Higher School of Economics Ukrainian Protests (2013-2014) in the context of Multiple Cleavages: main explanatory factors and foundations Vladimir Kozlov, Higher School of Economics Dmitry Zaytsev, Higher School of Economics Anastasia Galina, National Research University- Higher School of Economics “Je suis Charlie” as mass protest: analytical reconstruction of emerging publics in France and in global level Shota Kakabadze, INTELCORP: Research & Developmrnt Katerina Uzoikina, National Research University, Higher School of Economics

ySession 2 -

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA015)

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 03 y 170

MASS PROTESTS OF NEW MILLENNIA AS A CHALLENGE TO SOCIAL THEORY

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Santa Agnese SA015)

Anticorruption and mass protests in contemporary Russia Sergey Parkhomenko, National Research University Higher School of Economics The transformation of war and war as a mass protest Boris Kashnikov, National Research University Higher School of Economics How protest public affected development of volunteering organizations in Russia? Example of mass protests in 2011-2012 Artem Uldanov, Higher School of Economics Moscow

171 X

y Very few studies have focused on party-electorate policy representa-

tion and research has only sporadically focused on analysing the relationship between the political preferences of voters and, e.g., party manifestoes or governments’ public policies. However, the analysis of the policy agenda-setting and agenda-making channels, specifically party manifestoes and the legislation produced by governments, but also other less direct channels of policy commitment such as prime-minister speeches, party leader speeches, oral questions in plenary meetings, etc., are also means of addressing this methodological requirement. As this methodological option involves the analysis of governments’ proposed or adopted policies, it offers a way of validating the findings of other studies using different (more conventional) methodologies. In this context, we also intend to include a seldom used factor in these kinds of studies: the economic crisis. Especially among Southern European countries, the recent intervention programmes pushed governments to implement a series of severe austerity measures. The overall outcome has been a sharp drop in standards of living. To what extent have the economic crisis and the subsequent austerity measures forced upon several European countries affected the way governments built their policy agenda? And regarding the changes in governments’ policy decisions? And to what extent has the crisis affected the correspondence between the positions of citizens and representatives? Is the responsiveness of governments to public preferences unmediated or is it filtered through media agenda-setting processes? In general, are governments more responsive to public preferences or is the linkage between policy makers and the media more important? Bearing in mind the likely relationship between economic conditions and democratic performance and taking advantage of the emergence of the crisis, we would like to explore the general relationship between governments policy agenda (as well as other policy agenda-setting and agenda-making channels) and the public in matters of substantive policy issues and decisions.

y 172

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

-

-

-

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA112)

Economic crisis and lawmaking. The impact of crisis on legislative agenda in Italy (2008-2013) Andrea Pedrazzani, University of Bologna Alessandro Pellegata, University of Milan Luca Pinto, Università di Bologna The impact of the 2008 economic crisis on the link between political parties’ pledges and policymaking SImon Persico, Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte Isabelle Guinaudeau, Sciences Po Grenoble, Pacte The Hidden Opposition to a Fiscal Union in Southern Europe: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes on Economic Policy in Italy Fabio Franchino, Università degli Studi di Milano Paolo Segatti, Università degli Studi di MIlano Public spending and the chain of responsiveness in Italy (1946-2009): a veto-player approach Andrea Ceron, Università degli Studi di Milano Luigi Curini, Università degli Studi di Milano Fedra Negri, University of Milan Partisan influence on labour policies in times of crisis: do parties matter? Fedra Negri, University of Milan

ySession 2 -

yAna Belchior, ISCTE-IUL yEmmanouil Tsatsanis, CIES-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 04

GOVERNMENTS’ POLICY AGENDA AND RESPONSIVENESS IN TIMES OF CRISIS

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA112)

Citizens’ biased perceptions of pledges fulfillment: Understanding its causes using evidence from Portugal Ana Belchior, ISCTE-IUL Economic crisis, value change and policy representation: a quasi-experimental test for the “representation from above” theory in Portugal Emmanouil Tsatsanis, CIES-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa Fiscal Sustainability : Challenges of the government agenda and responsiveness in times of crisis: a review of subnational governments in Mexico. Izquierdo Alain, Universidad de Guadalajara Government shifts, parties resilience in management of the crisis: Europe as a driver of agenda setting in portuguese politics. Paulo Pedroso, ISCTE - Lisbon University institute It’s not easy being green in an austere climate: the impact of austerity upon environmental policy in Europe Paul Tobin, University of York Charlotte Burns, University of York

173 X

y This panel is concerned with conceptualisations of wicked problems

and the range of policy responses to wicked problems. Some types of policy problems have been described as messy, complex, intractable, open-ended and ‘wicked’. The policy literature since the 1970s (starting with Rittel & Webber, 1973) has increasingly recognised that many issues are inherently difficult to manage or resolve, owing to increasing complexity in areas of social policy, significant differences in values, interests and perceptions, and uncertainty of outcomes and consequences that had previously gone unrecognised.What are the key features of such problems? And are they really very different in nature from more routine problems? Are we developing better ways to address these wicked problems? How do approaches vary across different policy issues? How do different political-administrative cultures respond to complex challenges? Are some issues more ‘manageable’ in some institutional settings and political contexts than in other settings? In the postwar decades of the 1950s and 1960s there was a strong push to develop more rigorous and systematic forms of social science, which would provide research-based evidence for improvements in public policy. However, since the 1970s and 1980s many of these rationalist and scientific aspirations have been called into question and. The policy literature since the 1970s (since Rittel & Webber, 1973) has increasingly recognised that many issues are inherently difficult to manage or resolve, owing to increasing complexity in areas of social policy, significant differences in values, interests and perceptions, and uncertainty of outcomes and consequences that had previously gone unrecognised. These questions raise important challenges for both researchers and practitioners in their ongoing efforts to engage with how complex and controversial policy issues are framed, managed and resolved (or otherwise). Standard public management responses to complexity and uncertainty (such as a greater reliance on markets and outsourcing, and an increasing use of formal coordination mechanisms across public agencies) may now seem to be inadequate. New and broader process responses are increasingly being tested (such as cross-sectoral collaboration, participatory forums, mediation and conflict reduction). We appear to require some new approaches, and we can learn from the experiences and insights across policy issues and institutional contexts.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G016) Ora-orn Poocharoen, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: Complexity, contestation, and evidentiary bias Justin Parkhurst, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Tackling wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework Brian Head, University of Queensland Wicked Tendencies: The Myth of the Social/Technical Distinction in Public Policy Joshua Newman, University of Queensland Brian Head, University of Queensland

ySession 2 -

yBrian Head, University of Queensland yJoshua Newman, University of Queensland

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 04 - PANEL 06 y 174

POLICY RESPONSES TO ‘WICKED PROBLEMS’ THEORY AND PRACTICE

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G016)

Interpreting the case of Refugees: Is it a Wicked or a Complex Problem? Ora-orn Poocharoen, Lee Kuan, Yew School of Public Policy Jeffrey Straussman, University at Albany Are wicked problems a problem, and if so what should we do? Brian Coffey, Deakin University Contesting muddy waters: the ‘wicked problem’ of water policy reform in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin Jim Donaldson, Australian National University The non-receivers. Explanations as to why some Swedish municipalities resist refugee reception. Niklas Bolin, Mid Sweden University Gustav Lidén, Mid Sweden University Complex problems – Making sense of a „wicked“ concept Sabrina Kirschke, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research

175 X

yBrian Head, University of Queensland yJoshua Newman, University of Queensland

POLICY RESPONSES TO ‘WICKED PROBLEMS’ THEORY AND PRACTICE

y Parliaments and ministerial bureaucracy are key institutions for policy

making in modern democracies. Yet research on public policy and administration has long tended to sideline the important role of parliaments. At the same time, parliamentary research often neglects the policy perspective and merely focuses on events inside the chambers. This panel aims to bring together scholars from the respective disciplines to encourage a dialogue between them and inspire the development of common models and approaches. We invite papers that focus on the relationship between parliaments and the executive. The policy cycle provides a basic heuristic to structure the panel contributions: From an institutional point of view, papers may deal with the mechanisms of delegation and accountability, in the process perspective they may study the role of parliaments in problem definition and agenda setting, for policy formulation they may investigate the different actors in policy making and their interactions, for implementation they may look at the mechanisms of parliamentary control and for evaluation at parliamentary scrutiny. Apart from the stages approach to policy making, papers using alternative heuristics or models such as the Multiple Streams Approach or the Advocacy Coalition Framework are also very welcome as long as they deal with parliaments and the executive. Methodologically, we invite papers with both quantitative and qualitative approaches.

y 176

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G121) Sylvia Veit, University of Kassel Christian Stecker, Mannheim Center for European Social Research

TOPIC 05 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 05 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 05 - POLICY FORMULATION AND DECISION MAKING

Executive-Legislative Relations in the European Union: The impact of agenda control on inter-institutional decision-making and intra-institutional interaction patterns Stefan Thierse, University Duisburg-Essen Assessing the policy impact of the British Westminster parliament: the benefit of a stages approach Meg Russell, University College London State Parliaments and Policy Initiative: An Empirical Study of Police Related Agenda Setting Anna Katharina Frische, Helmut-Schmidt-University / University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences / Department of Public Administration Who determine policy: voters, Parliament or the executive? The case of Norwegian agricultural policy Hilmar Rommetvedt, International Research Institute of Stavanger Frode Veggeland, University of Oslo Does the legislature matter? The executive-legislative relations in Chinese legislative process Wenbo Chen, University of Hull

177 X

CHAIRS

yEva Thomann, University of Bern yFritz Sager, University of Bern

INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO MULTI-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH: MOVING BEYOND LEGAL COMPLIANCE

y Member-state implementation is the subject of modern implemen-

tation research ever since Pressman and Wildavsky (1974) studied “How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland.” Multi-level implementation research retains a strong top-down focus on member state compliance with central state decisions. However, particularly in EU implementation research it is argued that we should move beyond: First, “beyond compliance” (Schmidt 2008; Töller 2010); second, beyond the prevailing top-down perspectives that view the implementation of superordinate law as hierarchical guidance from above, and third, beyond the separation of research on national and international multi-level implementation (Pülzl and Treib 2007). This panel invites contributions from both established and young scholars that “move beyond” and take an innovative and systematic comparative approach to multi-level implementation. First, contributions may address other implementation outcomes than compliance; for example, the substantial similarity of domestic policies (Sager et al. 2014), situations when fully compliant member states go beyond the minimum requirements of superordinate law (Jans et al. 2009), or how and why EU policies are adopted by differentially integrated or non-integrated non-member states (Sager et al. 2014). Second, the panel particularly welcomes studies that deal with the processes, causes and outcomes of the member-state application and the domestic enforcement of central state policies after transposition. Third, the panel also invites studies that move multi-level implementation design forward (Exadaktylos and Radelli 2012); for example by analyzing under-researched policy fields, e.g., agriculture and food safety; testing complex explanations for implementation, in terms of interactions of variables and context-dependent patterns (Steunenberg 2007; Toshkov 2010); and/or addressing the issue of the relevant unit of analysis (Töller 2010; Toshkov 2010). Fourth, implementation studies analyzing all kinds of multi-level systems (federal, supranational) are welcome, especially when providing insights on how these perspectives can inform each other (Treib 2014).

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

In Transition to “Substantive” Compliance with EU requirements Asya Zhelyazkova, ETH Zurich / Cansarp Kaya, ETH Zurich / Reini Schrama, ETH Zürich Three schools or one continuum? Re-theorizing compliance and classifying compliance-inductive mechanisms in the EU Esther Versluis, Maastricht University / Elissaveta Radulova, Maastricht University The best of both worlds? Disentangling the roles of the logics of consequences and appropriateness for the customization of EU directives Eva Thomann, University of Bern Mind the Trend! Enforcement of EU law is moving to ‘Brussels’ Miroslava Scholten, Utrecht University

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA221) Tanja Klenk, University of Potsdam

Governing the intangible – Mapping the local implementation of the EU Air Quality Directives Judith Anna Marie Gollata, Leuphana University Lüneburg POLITICO–ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS IN THE NATIONAL RECEPTION OF OMC POLICIES: COMPARING POLICY SECTORS IN SLOVENIA Damjan Lajh, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences Danica Fink-Hafner, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences Multiple principals in domestic implementation of EU directives by national agencies Michelle Zonneveld, Radboud University Nijmegen Strategies in Multilevel Policy Implementation: Moving Beyond the Limited Focus on Compliance Eva G. HEIDBREDER, Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf

ySession 3 -

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA221) Jale Tosun, Heidelberg University

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 02 y 178

TOPIC 06 - POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Santa Agnese SA221) Eva Thomann, University of Bern

Implementing pollution control in federal Russia: How context matters and why multi-level implementation has a long way to go. Elena Gorianova, University of Sussex Multi-level implementation of State-based policy: Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 Helen Jordan, The University of Melbourne / Adrienne Campbell, Department of Health and Human Services / Iain Butterworth, Dr., Department of Health & Human Services, Eastern Metropolitan Health Southern Metropolitan Health Centrally moving away from conformance implementation in case of local planning reform but where to? Ellen Wayenberg, Ghent University Causal Recipes for States’ Environmental Justice Policy Adoption: A Decade after EO 12892 Yushim Kim, Arizona State University / Stefan Verweij, University of Bamberg

179 X

yZsolt Boda, Centre for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

yAttila Bartha, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

y Why do people obey the law? Why are they willing to accept policy

changes? How can public institutions get them to cooperate to ensure smooth policy implementation? These questions are of paramount importance if we want to increase policy effectiveness. Higher trust may contribute to more effective institutional performance and easier policy implementation. If people believe that laws serve the common good, and that the judicial system is both fair and effective, then they are more willing to cooperate with policy implementing institutions. As trust in public institutions depends on their perceived legitimacy, a crucial issue is whether citizens consider that these institutions rightly have authority over them. A number of studies about the willingness to cooperate with the police and tax authorities, compliance with health regulations during an epidemic, or the support of welfare reforms have demonstrated that a strong correlate of normative legitimacy of a public institution is procedural fairness understood as a signal of commitment to respect public interest by officials and decision-makers. The panel invites papers that address trust, legitimacy and policy effectiveness. What are the roots of trust and legitimacy in a cross-cultural comparative perspective? How are the decisions of political elites and legitimacy of institutions shaping policy effectiveness and conversely, what is the impact of policy outcomes on legitimacy? What kind of proxies can be used to measure the cultivation of legitimacy, i.e. policy efforts to sustain the legitimacy of policies and institutions in the long run? As available studies concentrate on some policy fields (compliance with the law or cooperation with the police), some geographical areas (Western Europe and the US), and some methodological approaches (attitudinal surveys), papers investigating other policy areas, covering different regions and applying other, innovative research methods are especially welcome.

y 180

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

-

Why public corporations are reluctant to comply with the rules of the central government-led committee? The case of public procurement rules in South Korea. Han-na Bae, Pusan National University Boram Hwang, Pusan National University Doorye Kim, Busan social Welfare Development Institution Chang-Hee Lee, Daegu Cyber University Understanding Conditions of State Legitimacy: a Comparative Study Jean-Francois Savard, ENAP Isabelle Caron, University of Ottawa Damien Wirths, University of Lausanne The effect of public services and infrastructure spending on trust in local government in China Bingqin Li, ANU A cross-national study of perceived legitimacy: what factors matter in the evaluation of governments in different political contexts? Honorata Mazepus, Leiden University

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA117) Geert Bouckaert, KU Leuven Public Governance Institute Attila Bartha, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 03

TRUST, LEGITIMACY AND PUBLIC POLICY EFFECTIVENESS

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA117) Geert Bouckaert, KU Leuven Public Governance Institute

Motivating collaboration among agents within the public administration: The case of the Hungarian county government office Eva Kovacs, National University for Public Service Can fear of sanctions foster tax morale without trust and normative legitimacy? Tax compliance in vulnerable democracies Attila Bartha, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Zsolt Boda, Centre for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Integrity, trust and surveillance: exploring trust through the role of integrity agencies in Australia Yvonne Haigh, Murdoch University To Serve and Protect? Trust and Mistrust in Police Guy Ben-Porat, Ben-Gurion University

181 X

CHAIRS

yMelina de Souza Rocha Lukic, Fundação Getúlio Vargas - Direito Rio

yNorma Muñoz, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, yCarla Guerra Tomazini, Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3, IHEAL Centre de Recherche et de Documentation sur les Amériques (CREDA)

y This panel aims to debate papers about State Capacity and Public

Policy in Latin America through the “Three Is” approach. The idea is to contrast the institutional and behaviour criteria related to the State Capacity, with elements emerging from society, in order to understand the influence of increasingly demanding and committed actors, whose social demands are directly addressed to the States. The assumption is that, in order to respond these demands, State Capacity is determined not only by its institutional structure and political interests but also by the structure and nature of the demands of the actors and coalitions that are addressed to the State. Thus, in order to debate this relationship between State and society through the concept of state capacity we propose an analysis by the “Three Is” approach. This theoretical framework (“Three Is”) is based on three criteria of public policy analysis: ideas, interests and institutions (Palier, Surel, 2005). The first criterion - ideas - relies on a cognitive and normative perspective, especially through the concepts of paradigm, frame of reference and advocacy coalition. The state capacity can be analysed by this element through the definition of the cognitive and normative role of the State in the public field and the definition of the elements that build relations between the actors and the State in a particular public policy. The objective here is to understand how the State legitimizes its action through a cognitive perspective in this context. The second criterion criteria of the “Three Is” approach identifies not only the interests of the actors (motivations, preferences, capacity for mobilization and strategies), but also the issues related to collective action and the process of decision making. Through these criteria, state capacity allows us to address an analysis about the mechanisms of decision making and the particularities presented by the interests of the actors in Latin America. Finally, the “Three Is” approach also considers the institutional dynamics through the relations between institutions and behaviour of the actors and at the same time try to understand how institutions evolve. The institutional criteria is linked with state capacity, since it allows us to analyse “the quality and coherence of political institutions” (Cardenas, 2010, p.3) and also issues of professionalization and state administrative capacity. This panel proposes to observe the configuration of actors present not only in the formulation and decision making of public policy but also in its implementation. It aims to analyse how the distribution of power at the time of the decision will also define the policy implementation. The definition of the implemen-

tation influenced by the actors regards both the control of these spaces and the organizational issues arising from the professionalization of the state. If the State Capacity seems to be a relevant conceptual tool for the analysis of the current role of the State in Latin America, the contribution of the three dimensional approach is important, since it makes possible to understand, recognize and contrast all these dynamics. We encourage proposals that combine conceptual discussion and empirical analysis. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: social policy (social security, health care, social care, child protection, education policy), fiscal policy, cultural policy, development policy and environmental policy.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G114) Guillaume Fontaine, FLACSO

Tax policy changes in the context of crisis in Brazil: Ideas, Interests and Institutions Melina de Souza Rocha Lukic, Fundação Getúlio Vargas - Direito Rio Public policy and sustainable development in Latin America: Reform and pending challenges Cristina Zurbriggen, Universidad de la Republica “Constructing Legitimacy in the New Public Sectors and State Capacity: The Case of Cultural and Environmental Policies in Chile” Norma Muñoz , Universidad de Santiago de Chile Dissecting the anatomy of Brazil´s transnordestina railway conundrum: An account through the lens of Institutional Economics, Behavioral Economics and Cognitive Theories of Public Policy Mauricio Fronzaglia, Mackenzie Presbyterian University Roberta Muramatsu, Mackenzie Presbyterian University Vladimir Maciel, Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie Álvaro Alves De Moura Junior, Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie

ySession 2 -

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 04 y 182

ANALYZING STATE CAPACITY AND PUBLIC POLICY IN LATIN AMERICA THROUGH THE “THREE IS” APPROACH

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Salle 11) Guillaume Fontaine, FLACSO

Brazil Without Poverty Plan and the Family Grant Program Carolina Raquel Justo, Federal University of São Carlos - UFSCar (universidade Federal de São Carlos) Conditional cash transfer programmes in Brazil: a “politician’s dilemma”? Carla Guerra Tomazini, Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3, IHEA Centre de Recherche et de Documentation sur les Amériques (CREDA) Path and evaluation of Brazilian programs turned to develop state capacity in the cities from 1997 to 2010: the contradiction between institutional, administrative capacity and political capacity Eduardo Grin, Fundaçao Getulio Vargas State Capacity & Rural Development Policy in Brazil Georges Flexor, UFRRJ, / CATIA GRISA, UFRGS, / Karina kato, UFRRJ Silvia Zimmermann, Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana (UNILA)

183 X

y Policy implementation has become a theme of increasing theoreti-

cal attention. Analysis of implementation has concentrated on classical top-down, bottom-up and integrated approaches. During the last decades alternative perspectives have emerged to analyse implementation through the network approach and the principal-agent framework. Although these classical perspectives have contributed to expand our understanding of putting in practice public policies, contribution from recent years are indicating the need to expand the study of policy implementation beyond these classical perspectives. For instance, Hill and Hupe (2009) see the future of these studies linked to the study of governance. Robichau and Lynn (2009) argue that public policy theories and theories of governance do not complement each other very well and that multilevel governance theories may supply what continues to be the missing link in policy implementation analysis. In turn, Ramesh (2008) points out that “implementation is discussed as flowing from policy” in the policy literature and that there is evidence indicating an inverse relationship, from implementation to policy-making. And Hupe (2014) states that the top-down controversy appears to be over and the theory-practice relationship, the multi-layer problem and the link between policy and politics should be the focus of implementation research. On the other hand, most of the approaches used to analyse implementation have been originated in studies from the United States and Europe. Hence, an interesting question is whether case studies from other contexts may confirm the validity of classical approaches, identify the same problems that recent literature from the US and Europe are envisioning or may suggest new perspectives in the analysis of policy implementation. Thus, the panel aims to discuss empirical evidence provided by case studies on policy implementation in different contexts. Although the panel is open to any cases, the presentation of case studies from Latin America, East Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania is highly encouraged.

y 184

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Santa Agnese SA115) Veronica Figueroa, University of Chile

Development, Democracy and Intersectorality in Brazil: Notes on Public Policies Instruments for Social Development Fernanda Natasha Bravo Cruz, Postgraduate Program on Development, Society and International Cooperation (PPGDSCI), Centre for Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies (CEAM), University of Brasília (UnB) Policy diffusion: analysis of the Chile’s administrative reform Andres Dockendorff, Central University Chile Mauricio Olavarria-Gambi, University of Santiago, Chile Why policy fails?: evidence from the case of the public transport system reform of Santiago, Chile Mauricio Olavarria-Gambi, University of Santiago, Chile

ySession 2 -

yMauricio Olavarria-Gambi, University of Santiago, Chile yCristian Pliscoff, University of Chile

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 05

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 05

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION: ANALYSIS OF CASES FROM CLASSICAL AND NEW PERSPECTIVES

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA115) Cristian Pliscoff, University of Chile

Analysing policy implementation in federal Russia. Beyond top-down and bottom-up approaches Elena Gorianova, University of Sussex Productive Networks and implementation of Rural Public Policies in Brazil Zilma Borges de Souza, Getulio Vargas Foundation_Universitè Paris Dauphine Investment security versus human rights? Horizontal frictions in the international biodiversity regime Thomas Eimer, Radboud University The Problem of European Migration Policy Implementation: the Impact of Germany on its process and outcomes Dmitriy Burykin, National Research University Higher School of Economics Nina Belyaeva, Higher School of Economics

185 X

y This panel proposes to analyse the ways in which officials working in

“street-level” settings of public administration make sense of the legal basis of their work. It follows a “law-in-action” perspective that is interested in the way laws manifest themselves in their implementation, often causing effects that were unforeseen by policy makers (cf. Falk Moore 1978, Scott). Following Lipsky’s seminal work on “street-level bureaucracy” (1980), we seek to analyse the ways in which administrators use their discretionary powers. However, following more recent interpretative accounts of governance (see Rhodes 2009, Bevir and Rhodes 2010), accounts of policy implementation cannot stop at formal discretionary practices, but have to address how the meaning of law is interpreted and communicated among bureaucrats. This is particularly true for front-line services that are often far removed from those disseminating policies (Dubois 2010), and in which “occupational survival” strategies (Satyamurti 1982) can favour “muddling through” over formal procedures. While knowing that an implementation gap is to be expected, there is still a dearth of in-depth analyses in this field. The studies that exist tend to address specific policy fields without addressing a wider audience. In order to fill this gap, we invite papers from different policy areas that focus on practices of legal implementation, highlighting mechanisms that help to explain differences in decisions and outcomes. We are particularly interested in exploring the practices of legal implementation in different policy domains. While the street-level policy implementation in welfare agencies has received much scholarly attention, other policy fields remains understudied. In the field of migration/border control policies, some researchers have addressed local implementation (Ellerman 2009, Eule 2014)) or encouraged research agendas that focus on the everyday practices of the plurality of power-brokers involved in the securing of borders (Kôté-Boucher, Infantino, and Salter 2014). However, researches of street-level implementation in distinct policy areas rarely refer to each other. With this panel, we would like to bring more focus to mechanisms and processes of legal implementation across specific policy areas.

y 186

CHAIRS

yFederica Infantino, Université Libre de Bruxelles Sciences Po Paris

yTobias Eule, University of Bern

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

An example of street-level bureaucracy study in Belgian welfare policies. “Integration agents” and the definition of the “right to social integration”. Valentine Duhant, Université Libre de Bruxelles, GERME Law and/in the administration of asylum applications: an Austrian case study Julia Dahlvik, University of Vienna Pragmatism and organizational cultures. Street-level organizations in the implementation of social policies for immigrants Roberta Perna, University of Turin - Department of Cultures, Politics and Society Family migration policy in Belgium: between centralization and local redefinition. Carla Mascia, GERME - ULB From the Law to the Decision: The Social Conditions of Asylum Adjudication in Switzerland Jonathan Miaz, University of Lausanne and University of Strasbourg

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Via Lanzone VL0-01/G053) Federica Infantino, Université Libre de Bruxelles/Sciences Po Paris

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 06

THE BUREAUCRAT AND THE LAW: POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION IN FRONT-LINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Lanzone VL0-01/G053) Tobias Eule, University of Bern

Dimensions of local-level public financial supervision and its role for the fiscal situation Steffen Zabler, University of Konstanz Falk Ebinger, Universität Konstanz Christian Person, Universität Konstanz Affective Labour and Activation Regimes: Contradictions of Interactive Service Work in Public Employment Agencies Myriam Gaitsch, Dept. of Political Science, University of Vienna Birgit Sauer, Dept. of Political Science, University of Vienna Newcomers to the Frontline: Street-Level Bureaucrats, Tenure and Policy Implemention Martin Lundin, Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy Anahita Assadi, Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Eduction Policy Linking Bureaucratic Malfeasance and Political Finance in a Developing State Joseph Luna, Harvard University

187 X

y

First, we welcome papers which address these issues on an empirical basis and focus on the implementation process at the regional level. Different types of actors may be investigated: public or private, experts or policy managers, any public policy field (social, employment, environmental, etc.). As a part of an ongoing collective research project, the main aim of the panel is to gather various empirical field investigations highlighting different findings. Second, as we focus on the relationship between experts and regional policy making, we welcome researchers but also experts and policy managers as paper givers. A large variety of questions stemming from this reflection can be addressed into two main sessions: Session 1 – Do intra-national actors behave differently in EU policy implementation? • Is there a specificity of the regional level in the manner of public policy implementation? Do all actors investigated agree on the definition of what is local or regional? Exploring the intra-national: do the balances between regional and local actors only depend on institutional and administrative actors? • How can social sciences address the analytical challenge of identifying the specific weight of EU, national and regional path dependencies? Is it easier to identify “civil society” and “socio economic” actors at the regional level? • Under what conditions do regional actors seek to obtain EU funds and programs? To what extent are regional policy-makers aware of implicit EU public policy objectives?

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

yJosua Gräbener, IEP Grenoble, Laboratoire Pacte yFanny Sbaraglia, Université Libre de Bruxelles

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16:00 (Santa Agnese SA117) Fanny Sbaraglia, Université Libre de Bruxelles

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 07

TOPIC 06 - PANEL 07

DO REGIONS REALLY MATTER? REGIONALIZATION STRATEGIES AS A FIELD OF INVESTIGATION AND A CHALLENGE FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Why regional differences really matter for implementation in Russia. A case of pollution control regulations Elena Gorianova, University of Sussex Strategic Management in German Municipalities Jens Weiß, Hochschule Harz Regional Development Agency as a Strategy for Regionalization: The Role of EU Conditionality Ebru Ertugal, Baskent University Transposition of European Directives by Subnational Entities: Comparing the Flemish, Walloon and Scottish Performance Figures Isabelle De Coninck, Public Governance Institute - University Leuven Steven Van Hecke, KU Leuven Public Governance Institute, Catholic University Leuven A strategic game of tools selection: the Government-Council of State interaction Elisa Rebessi, Università degli Studi di Milano Francesco Zucchini, Dept. Social and Political Sciences Università degli Studi di Milano

Session 2 – The growth of expertise policy implementation: an EU- or region-driven strategy? • How do the national and regional contexts shape the relations between expertise and scientific research? For instance, how do the different epistemological trends influence the way research enters into dialogue with expertise and consultancy? Are some disciplines better appreciated in policy advice and why? Conversely, under what conditions are policy advice and expertise experiences positively valued in academia? • To what extent do experts and their solutions really circulate across regions and across countries? To what extent are professional experiences with EU programs valuable in other fields? Under what conditions can the EU programs’ expertise be used for political purposes, be it in the political or administrative arenas?

y 188

189 X

yMIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University

CO-PRODUCTION AS A POLICY TOOL: DESIGN IMPEDIMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES

y Co-production is a policy tool involving the enhanced engagement of

citizens and their associations in goods and service delivery, offsetting the use of other instruments such as public organizations or private contracts (Hood, 1984). This particular aspect of co-production has intrigued scholars of instrument choice for several decades (see Salamon 1981 and 2001). Since there are costs to the use of citizens’ time and limits to the extent to which a largely untrained, often voluntary group of actors can replace professional experts and administrators (Pestoff, Brandsen and Verschuere 2012), the circumstances surrounding its use and management are of great interest to students of policy tools. Various management challenges exist in co-production design and use, however. At the system level, co-production implies managerial activities through which government creates space for discretion of other actors while evoking joint responsibility (Hill and Hupe, 2014). These activities include invitation and selection of participants, creation and maintenance of network of organisations that will act as service providers and development of ways to manage strategic and operational complexity that comes with collaborative arrangements (Agranoff and McGuirre, 2003). While at the level of organization co-production management is focused on nurturing partnership, at the individual level emphasis is placed upon ensuring professionalization in management of internal contacts and adoption of a user-centred approach in managing external contacts (Hill and Hupe, 2014). This includes engagement of citizens in production of their own services in full or in part with public service professionals (Pestoff, Osborne and Brandsen, 2006). Papers addressing these and other similar issues in co-production design are encouraged.

y 190

CHAIR

ySession 1 -

Rethinking Governance as an element of inclusive and sustainable development Cristina Zurbriggen, Universidad de la Republica Formulating social innovation at the subnational level. A policy design approach of the European Social Fund implementation in Wallonia Region (BE) Fanny Sbaraglia, Université Libre de Bruxelles Merging Policy and Management Thinking to Advance Policy Theory & Practice: Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool MIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

-

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Via Nirone NI010)

TOPIC 07 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 07 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 07 - POLICY DESIGN

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Via Nirone NI010) Anka Kekez Koštro, Faculty of Political Science University of Zagreb

Rowdsourcing as a New Model of Coproduction in the Era of Social Media M. Jae Moon, Yonsei University Eunyi Kim, Incheon National University Can Gamification Assist the Implementation of Co-Production Tools? Experimental Evidence of Online Collaboration Alberto Asquer, SOAS, University of London Inna Krachkovskaya, University of Cagliari Taking Co-production Seriously and Reshaping the Idea of Philanthropic Impact. Foundations as Public Policy Labs Giulio Pasi, Institute of Advanced Study of Pavia Urban living labs as a new form of co-production: Insights from five European cases Nesti Giorgia, Department of Political Science, Law and International Studies, University of Padova

191 X

yMartin Nekola, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences

yArnošt Veselý, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University

POLICY WORK RESEARCH: LINKING EVIDENCE WITH THEORY

y Despite long-standing scholarly interest in the characteristics and work of “policy analysts”, actual empirical evidence was, until recently, very rare. This changed during the mid-2000s with qualitative case studies in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands (Page & Jenkins, 2005; Colebatch, 2006; Hoppe & Jeliazkova, 2006). Almost a decade later, a series of large-scale quantitative studies of Canadian federal and provincial policy analysts were undertaken (Wellstead, Stedman & Lindquist, 2009; Wellstead & Stedman, 2010; Howlett & Newman, 2010; Howlett & Wellstead, 2011). This was followed by surveys in other countries including Australia, the Czech Republic and Belgium. This research produced a lot of data and new information. However, it has been also criticized for being largely atheoretical and for adding little to what had been already known from qualitative surveys or practice. The aim of the panel is to review the state of the art of the policy work research (both quantitative and qualitative) with special focus upon theoretical and methodological implications. We intend to bring together scholars from different countries and professional backgrounds, as well as using different methodologies to discuss together what we know about the world of policy analysts / workers. Questions asked by the panel include: What have we learnt from the data in terms of theory building? How do the empirical findings correspond with theoretical work on the topic (Colebatch, Hoppe, Mayer et al. and others)? What are the most significant research questions for future research on policy work? What are the implications for refinements in methodology? Is mixed-method methodology a solution? Is there any generally applicable knowledge on the nature of current policy work across policy domains, countries, governance levels etc.? And last but not least, what are the implications for actual policy work practice?

y 192

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

Policy Workers in Managing and Implementing EU Cohesion Policy: The Slovenian and Croatian Case Zdravko Petak, University of Zagreb Damjan Lajh, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences Policy work as expert policy advice: reflections on theory and practice Ellen Fobé, KU Leuven Public Governance Institute Marleen Brans, KU Leuven Public Governance Institute Policy Work in Central Government: Linking Theory and Empirical Evidence in Comparative Perspective Arnošt Veselý, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University Managing policy work matters: Profiles and styles of managers in the Czech Republic ministries Kohoutek Jan, Charles University in Prague Martin Nekola, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Santa Agnese SA221) MIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 08 - POLICY ADVICE, EXPERTISE AND EVALUATION

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA221) Hal Colebatch, UNSW Australia

Policy-Related Expertise and Policy Work in Political Parties. Theory and Methods Martin Polášek, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Department of Political Science Vilém Novotný, Charles University in Prague, Department of Public and Social Policy Michel Perottino, Institute of political science, Faculty of social sciences Charles University in Prague Scientific Theory and Evidence in Public Policy Recommendations – Performance Pay in OECD Report Series on Public Management Anita Välikangas, University of Helsinki Evidence-Based Policy (EBP): International Impacts of a Hegemonic Discourse Anna Wesselink, Unesco-IHE Belief Systems of Czech Policy Bureaucrats: Are They Positivists or Post-positivist? Martin Nekola, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences

193 X

y Does evidence-based policy making lead to purely technocratic,

undemocratic decision-making or do evaluation results enrich the discourse in democratic processes? The panel “How do democracy and policy evaluation speak to each other?” aims at shedding light on the question of the interrelation between democracy and policy evaluation by discussing research on the use of evaluations in democratic processes as well as on the democratisation of the evaluation processes. Papers should address one of the following topics: (1) transfer of evaluation results into democratic decision making processes, (2) the use of evaluation results in argumentation and deliberative processes, (3) theory and practice of deliberative, democratic or participative evaluation, (4) expertise and opinion formation, (5) concepts and practice of evaluation culture in democracies. Both theoretical and empirical papers are welcome. The panel is open to all researchers from all over the world, irrespective of whether they are formally affiliated with the study of political science, public administration or with other adjacent fields (such as history, political philosophy, political theory, law, and others). Academic quality and a substantive interest in the research theme are the prime requirements for participation.

CHAIRS

Leuphana University Lueneburg

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

DISCUSSANTS -

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA221) Peter Biegelbauer, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology Stephen Jones, University of Queensland

The use of evidence within policy evaluation in health in Ghana: implications for accountability and democratic governance Elisa Vecchione, LSHTM Justin Parkhurst, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Tracing the Use of Evaluations in Legislative Processes in Swiss Cantonal Parliaments Daniela Eberli, Institut für Politikwissenschaft Does the use of evidence influence discourse? Lessons from Swiss direct democratic campaigns on school policy Caroline Schlaufer, University of Bern Framing evidence in political campaigns Iris Stucki, University of Bern

ySession 2

-

y 194

yFritz Sager, University of Bern yThomas Saretzki, Center for the Study of Democracy,

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 02

HOW DO DEMOCRACY AND POLICY EVALUATION SPEAK TO EACH OTHER?

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA221) Peter Biegelbauer, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Stephen Jones, University of Queensland

“Traduttore, Traditore”: The Entry of Evaluation into the Media Arena: Forms and Effects. Vincent Caby, Centre Emile Durkheim Influenced and influential evaluations: participatory evaluations and their use Bart De Peuter, KU Leuven Public Governance Institute The argumentative basis of non-incremental knowledge effects in democratic decision making Falk Daviter, University of Potsdam Evaluation in a rat race? Rationality traps in the interplay of scientists, politicians and civil society Laura Isabell Tomm, University of Braunschweig Reiner Judith, University of Braunschweig Nils C. Bandelow, Institute for Social Sciences, University of Braunschweig

195 X

y The literature in the policy sciences on policy tools or instruments

historically has focused almost exclusively on implementation tools (Hood 1986; Salamon 2002; Hood and Margetts 2007; Howlett 2011). However, each of the stages of policy process is also subject to government action (Wu et al 2010) and distinct sets of policy tools can be identified in each of the non-implementation stages of policy-making. This panel addresses the situation with respect to agenda-setting or the stage in which policy issues and problems are first brought to the attention of policy-makers and included as subjects of possibly government policy-making activities; policy formulation or the process of developing alternative options for government action; decision-making or the process of selecting a specific alternative; and policy evaluation or the process of monitoring and reporting on the results of policy outputs and outcomes. Thus papers on the panel will examine the literature on these subjects and focus attention on the tools commonly employed in these activities.

y 196

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

yMIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL0-01/G053) Giliberto Capano, Scuola normale superiore

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 03

NON-IMPLEMENTATION POLICY TOOLS: USES AND CONSEQUENCES

Rally to the Flag Revisited: Freezing Deliberation through Public Expert Advice PerOla Öberg, Uppsala University Erik Baekkeskov, Roskilde University The promise of green and white papers tested: Towards a more efficient, transparent, legitimate and evidence-based policy? Valérie PATTYN, Public Governance Institute Nele Bossens, Public Governance Institute Marleen Brans, Public Governance Institute Agenda-Setting Tools: State-Driven Agenda Activity from Government Relations to Scenario Forecasting MIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University Ex post evaluation tools: a review. Giliberto Capano, Scuola normale superiore The Tools of Policy Formulation: Actors, Capacities, Venues and Effects Andy Jordan, Tyndall centre

197 X

y The panel is aimed at furthering the debate on the use of causal me-

chanisms in the policy sciences. The concept is used across many disciplines, meaning why and how initial conditions produce outcomes. Even if there has been no general claim for a ‘mechanismic turn’ in the policy sciences, some applications are germane to policy analysis. Political scientists are increasingly using the concept in qualitative studies, revealing paths and tracing the unfolding of phenomena (Bennett 2013, Falleti 2010). Similarly, organisational scientists have used the concept to explain organizational change (Kelman 2005) and investigating methods for extrapolating successful managerial practices (Barzelay 2007). Scholars and practitioners working with evidence-based policy are exploring realistic approaches, with a specific focus on mechanisms (Pawson and Tilley 1997, Pawson 2006). Finally, cognitive psychologists have put to the fore the importance of psychological mechanisms for improving policy design (Thaler and Sunstein 2009). This is by no means a homogeneous body of literature, but some of these contributions are inspiring and suggest there could be room for a profitable use of the concept in policy sciences. However, ambiguities exist on the meaning, potential, and proper space for mechanisms. The panel aims to explore the issue. We invite both theoretical and empirical contributions having a focus on causal mechanisms. Both academics and practitioners are invited to contribute to the panel. Theoretical papers addressing the following topics are particularly welcome: - Conceptualization of causal mechanisms, - Utility to policy analysis as an applied social science, - Methodologies for uncovering, testing and reproducing mechanisms, - Investigations of specific types mechanisms typically found within policy. For empirical papers, the aim is to explore applications across the widest range of sectors. Empirical papers may use both quantitative and qualitative methods and focus on the design, implementation and evaluation of public policy.

y 198

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Lanzone VL1-03/G151) Bruno Dente, Politecnico di Milano

Opening the black box of administrative innovation: A process tracing application Giancarlo Vecchi, Politecnico di Milano Simone Busetti, Politecnico di Milano Just why, how and when should more participation lead to better environmental policy outcomes? A causal framework for analysis Edward Challies, Leuphana University Lüneburg Jens Newig, Leuphana University Lüneburg Nicolas Jager, Leuphana University Lüneburg Elisa Kochskämper, Leuphana University Lüneburg Logic diagrams for policy systems thinking Helen Jordan, The University of Melbourne The Mechanistic Turn – Recent Trends in the Methodological Literature Gustav Lidén, Mid Sweden University An Epistemological Perspective on Policy Entrepreneurship: Descriptive Metaphor or Causal Mechanism? Vincent Hopkins, Simon Fraser University

ySession 2 -

ySimone Busetti, Politecnico di Milano yErica Melloni, Istituto per la ricerca sociale

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 04

MECHANISMS FOR THE POLICY SCIENCES: THEORIES, METHODS AND APPLICATIONS

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL1-03/G151) Bruno Dente, Politecnico di Milano

Regulatory mechanisms for increasing trust in food safety policy Maria Stella Righettini, University of Padova An Offer You Can’t Refuse - Interactions of Policy Instruments and Individual Behavior Niccolò Donati, University of Milan The use of mechanisms in evaluation research. Problems of methods and examples from real-world evaluations Erica Melloni, Istituto per la ricerca sociale Flavia Pesce, IRS Cristina Vasilescu, IRS Regenerating cities: Which mechanisms may revive local governance? Simone Busetti, Politecnico di Milano Moneyba González Medina, University Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla Maria Angeles Huete García, Universidad Pablo de Olavide Rafael Merinero Rodríguez, Pablo de Olavide University No Good Recommendation Without Mechanistic Explanation? The case of education governance Alessia Damonte, Dept. Social and Political Sciences - Università degli Studi di Milano Giliberto Capano, Scuola normale superiore

199 X

CHAIRS

yLuca Barani, Haute Ecole de Bruxelles yXavier Carpentier Tanguy, Chaire en études parlementaires, Chambre des Députés du Grand Duché

yMattia Diletti, “Sapienza” Università di Roma

y We are happy to invite academic colleagues and fellow practitioners

to join our efforts and contribute to our research interest in the growing role of think tanks as meaningful actors in the policy making processes at local, national and global levels. For different reasons, in different political regimes, think tanks are increasingly playing a more visible role, affecting policy agendas and processes, in conjunction with traditional and social mass media. For example, international organizations are being increasingly served by a growing plurality of think tanks, several of whom are becoming important actors themselves. At the same time, in BRIC countries, where growing authoritarian tendencies deny or even ban traditional political actors, some think tanks have become platforms for alternative views on the policy-making process. In different cases, some are ready to demonstrate full loyalty to official policies and decisions while others become direct and outspoken critics and opponents, producing alternative solutions to public policy agendas. We consider that think tanks are discrete actors in different policy environments of different nations - working in conjunction or in competition with Universities, Academies of Sciences, research teams in corporate Business and research-focused NGOs, striving to produce policy alternatives vis-à-vis central, regional and local authorities. At the same time, think tanks behave very differently, depending on both “external” and “internal” factors: where “external” refers to political, economic and regulatory “environments”; while “internal” indicates their own “organizational” and “academic” traditions (Think Tank Traditions: Policy Research and the Politics of Ideas by Diane Stone and Andrew Denham. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2004). For this panel, we are intending to bring together a group of international scholars interested in presenting their case studies and/or general studies, which will shed some light on the role and functions of think tanks in the policy process of specific countries or on the theoretical level of their “policy environment”.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS

-

-

-

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA223) Xavier Carpentier Tanguy, Chaire en études parlementaires, Chambre des Députés du Grand Duché Mattia Diletti, “Sapienza” Università di Roma

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 05

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 05 y 200

THINK TANKS AND POLICY ADVISORY SYSTEMS

Think tanks in different political systems: a comparative study of British and Iranian think tanks Seyed Mohamad Sadegh Emamian, Edinburgh University Think tanks under the notion of heterotopia Rafael Heiber, Common Action Forum Jaime González-Capitel, Georgetown University David Romero Sánchez, Common Action Forum The institutionalization of foreign policy think tanks in Europe: a comparative perspective Anna Longhini, Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences - SCUOLA NORMALE SUPERIORE (SNS) Towards new standards in the ethics of policy research organizations Jaime González-Capitel, Georgetown University Think Tanks’ Impact on Foreign Policy towards “Arab Spring” in embedded democracies: cases of USA and UK Kononova Alexandra, Higher School of Economics Dmitry Zaytsev, Higher School of Economics

201 X

CHAIRS

y Contemporary policy-making relies considerably on policy advice,

ySession 1

contributed by a variety of actors and sources that compose the policy advisory system in a political system. Empirically, the configurations of policy advisory systems vary across political systems. As shown by earlier research, the configuration of the advisory system, i.e. its structure and design, affects and pre-structures both the type of advice provided and the content of the advice. Hence, if transferred to policy-making the configuration of a given advisory system also affects policy-making and ultimately policy output. Research on policy advice, however, typically focuses on how advice or knowledge is transferred to policy-making by analysing single advisory actors, e.g. councils or advisory commission, and not by analysing the whole advisory system. Hence, little is known so far on the causes and consequences of the configuration of policy advisory systems, their implications for policy-making, and – as Craft (2014) has pointed out – even less is known on the complex interdependencies of advisory systems and policy (sub)systems. The panel addresses these research gaps. The panel invites both theoretical and empirical papers on the configuration of policy advisory systems in different political systems (both comparative papers and in-depth studies of specific national or regional systems) as well as papers that address the interdependencies of policy advisory systems and policy (sub)systems by e.g. studying particular advisory processes. The panel is open for a wide range of theoretical and methodological perspectives and particularly welcomes papers with original empirical data. We encourage international and intranational comparisons across policy fields.

DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 202

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA325) Sylvia Veit, University of Kassel

Advisory systems: an international comparative research Daphne Bressers, Netherlands School of Public Governance / Martin Schulz, Netherlands School of Public Governance / Martijn van der Steen, Netherlands School of Public Administration Policy, Polity and Politics: On the Determinants of Advisory Bodies in Germany and The Netherlands Martin Schulz, Netherlands School of Public Governance / Sven Siefken, Martin-Luther-University Halle Wittenberg Scaling Up and Across: Policy Advisory Regimes Jonathan Craft, University of Toronto / Matt Wilder, University of Toronto Beyond interfaces: conceptualizing the dynamics of advisory systems Raffael Himmelsbach, Linköping University

ySession 3 -

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA325) Daphne Bressers, Netherlands School of Public Governance

Think tanks and knowledge regimes in a globalised Europe Jesper Dahl Kelstrup, Roskilde University The policy advisory system of the German federal government Sylvia Veit, University of Kassel / Thurid Hustedt, University of Potsdam The policy advisory system in Belgium Jan Van Damme, Public Governance Institute The externalization and politicization of policy advice in the Netherlands Caspar Van Den Berg, Leiden University

ySession 2 -

yLuca Thurid Hustedt, University of Potsdam, yMartin Schulz, Netherlands School of Public Governance yJan Van Damme, Public Governance Institute, KU Leuven

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 06

COMPARING POLICY ADVISORY SYSTEMS

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA325) MIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University

Scientific advice in climate mitigation and adaptation policy: Comparison of knowledge regimes in different policy sub-systems Andrea Tony Hermann, BOKU - University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna / Michael Pregernig, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg / Anja Bauer, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna / Sabine Reinecke, Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography, University of Freiburg Looking Back and Moving Forward: 30 years of Policy Advisory Systems John Halligan, University of Canberra / Jonathan Craft, University of Toronto Are Some Countries More Prone to Pressure Evaluators than Others? Comparing Findings on Independence of Evaluations from the USA, Germany and Switzerland Lyn Pleger, Center of Competence for Public Management, University of Bern Fritz Sager, University of Bern Aligning evidence, authority, and accountability: insights from a comparative analysis of evidence advisory systems for health policy making in six countries Justin Parkhurst, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine / Stefanie Ettelt, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine / Benjamin Hawkins, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Elisa Vecchione, LSHTM

203 X

y We welcome papers that engage with the interaction of research,

evidence, and policy from a critical perspective, with a particular focus on national and international bodies tasked with evidence use. In spite of the increasing push for evidence to inform policy and the proliferation of formal bodies tasked with evidence synthesis in many countries, there has been a dearth of theoretically and methodologically rigorous studies of the political factors influential in shaping the uptake and use of evidence for policy making. These can include institutional analyses of the structures, rules, or broader norms shaping evidence use for given public policy decisions, as well as other political elements including ideas, interests, and networks. This panel will include empirical analyses within or across countries to help fill this gap. We particularly encourage papers that utilise well established analytical lenses to study how different political systems influence the use of research and evidence for policy making (for example how federalism/decentralisation, or the structure of the bureaucracy may shape the structures, rules, and norms of evidence advisory systems). Similarly we welcome papers that utilise established methods of political analysis (e.g. discourse analysis, network analysis, political economy analysis, ethnography, comparative political analysis) to study the utilisation of evidence within formal government advisory systems. We welcome papers focussing on low, middle, and high income countries to provide comparative insights into state structures, local politics, and evidence use.

CHAIRS

and Tropical Medicine

yKathryn Oliver, University College London

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

DISCUSSANTS -

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Santa Agnese SA115) Stefanie Ettelt, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine David Gough, EPPI-Centre, UCL, London

Are policies evidence-based or “public wealth” based? Gábor Erőss, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Judicial activism and public policy in Colombia: health system reform, the ‘tutela’ system and the implications for evidence informed policy. Benjamin Hawkins, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Arturo Alvarez Rosete, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Science, Risk and Legitimacy: Investigating the dynamics of knowledge and networks in the contentious policy arena of unconventional gas. Naomi Smith Devetak, The University of Queensland Expert advice and minimum wage policy making: testing claims about the role of institutions and culture Fabian Klein, Freie Universität Berlin / Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies,

ySession 2

-

y 204

yJustin Parkhurst, London School of Hygiene

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 07

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 07

THE INTERACTION OF RESEARCH AND POLICY POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS SHAPING THE USE OF POLICY RELEVANT EVIDENCE

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA115) Stefanie Ettelt, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine David Gough, EPPI-Centre, UCL, London

Institutional design and sustainability of evidence-advisory bodies for health Ioana Vlad, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine The Science of Evidence Based Policy Making Paul Cairney, University of Stirling Adam Wellstead, Michigan Technological University Institutionalized policy advice through departmental research in Germany: Using the RIU-model to analyze the case of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Janina Heim, University of Göttingen, Chair of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Michael Boecher, University Goettingen Is knowledge really power? Utilisation, translation, co-creation and other fluff Evelyne de Leeuw, La Trobe University

205 X

y According to Thomas R. Dye, policy analysis seeks to understand what

governments do, why they do it, and what difference it makes. Yet much scholarship in the area of public policy puts its analytical focus on the first two goals at the expense of the third. In the past years and decades, many studies have contributed to a better understanding of the factors that explain cross-national variance in policy outputs, but the thorough comparative evaluation of their effects in the real world has often been neglected. This is unfortunate, because this third function of policy analysis arguably bears substantial societal relevance. This panel invites studies that try to assess the effectiveness of regulatory policies in solving societal problems. Do regulatory policies have any effect on the problems they are supposed to solve? Which regulatory arrangements are associated with the best (and the worst) policy outcomes? How can research pragmatic problems associated with an evaluation of regulatory policies be overcome? By addressing questions like these, the contributors of this panel advance our understanding of the real world impacts of different regulatory frameworks in a multitude of different policy areas. These areas include, but are not limited to, environmental policy, consumer protection policy, health policy and morality policy. We would like to point out that we invite all sorts of theoretical and methodological approaches in order to stimulate fruitful discussions.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

DISCUSSANTS

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G005) Emma Budde, GSI, LMU Yves Steinebach, LMU München - GSI

A Study on the Population Factor in the Internal Revenue Allotment’s Allocation and Utilization for Local Philippine Population Management Ebinezer Florano, Center for Policy and Executive Development How cannabis policy affects the demand for treatment of cannabis-related problems Christian Adam, University of Munich Characterizing Regulatory Robustness and Effectiveness: The Case of U.S. Alcohol Policy Saba Siddiki, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Lilliard Richardson, IUPUI

ySession 2 -

yChristoph Knill, University of Munich ySteffen Hurka, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich yChristian Adam, University of Munich

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 09

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 09 y 206

DOES REGULATION MATTER? EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF REGULATORY POLICIES

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G005) Yves Steinebach, LMU München - GSI Emma Budde, GSI, LMU

Beyond formal rules: monitoring Independent Regulatory Agencies by the legislative Laura Chaqués Bonafont, University of Barcelona and IBEI Jacint Jordana, Universitat Pompeu Fabra - Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals Firearm regulations and homicide rates – evaluating the effectiveness of gun policies Steffen Hurka, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich Christoph Knill, University of Munich It’s up to you: Explicitness, instrument choice and policy outcomes in morality policy Eva Thomann, University of Bern Fritz Sager, University of Bern

207 X

y The dynamics and patterns of social-policy pathways through the fiscal and economic crises since 2008 have been anything but straightforward and differ decisively among countries. While welfare states set their course into the 21st century, the current conditions of – in many places - still enforced - “permanent austerity” trigger speculations on the future role of the state, its resilience under post-national constellations and the possibilities of governing reforms. Simultaneously, we observe an increasing relevance of epistemic authority: transnational expert networks, think tanks, and public research agencies engage in a “framing contest” on which social policies have proved effective for tackling problems in times of crisis. This “rise of the unelected” (Vibert 2007) is accompanied by a renewed interest in evidence-based policy. Furthermore, with behavioural economics gaining in popularity, the understanding of regulation seems to change, as e.g. modes of behavioural regulation (“nudging”) are developed in fields such as pensions or consumer protection. Overall, this reconfiguration of political and epistemic authority in times of crisis offers us the opportunity to study how expertise and politics interact (and compete for influence) in the transformation of welfare states. Aspects that will be dealt with include:

CHAIRS

ySonja Blum, KU Leuven, Public Governance Institute, Catholic University Leuven

yHolger Strassheim, Humboldt-University Berlin

ySession 1 -

-

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA222)

Family policies in Europe: Ideas and policy change in times of crisis Sonja Blum, Public Governance Institute, Catholic University Leuven Facing unemployment in economic crisis times by local governments. The evaluation of socio-labor insertion tracks as key strategy in South Spain Margarita Pérez, University of Granada Nieves Ortega-Pérez, University of Granada Nudging individual health? New perspectives on health care policies Kathrin Loer, Fernuniversität Hagen Back to the Roots – The Influence of Knowledge and Evidence on British Labour Market Policies since 2010 Sylvia Pannowitsch, TU Darmstadt Barriers to welfare reform in the CEE: the case of employment rehabilitation services Agota Scharle, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis Balázs Váradi, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis Flóra Samu, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 10

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 10

GOVERNING WELFARE STATE REFORMS IN TIMES OF CRISIS: THE ROLE OF EXPERTISE AND POLICY KNOWLEDGE

• Concepts/theories of political and epistemic authority in the post-crisis constellation, • The role of policy knowledge in recent welfare state reforms,, • Policy advisory systems and expert cultures in social policies,, • New practices of social-policy knowledge (e.g. evaluation modes, experimental practices), changing welfare state discourses/narratives (e.g. libertarian paternalism, social investment, big society • Changing instruments and understandings of social policy regulation We welcome both theoretical and empirical papers from different social science disciplines including sociology, political science, public administration, and science, technology & society studies. Papers addressing varying levels or units of analysis, such as the international, national and subnational level, or addressing different spheres (e.g. health, employment, family policy) are particularly welcome.

y 208

209 X

CHAIRS

yChristian Flachsland, Mercator Research Intitute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)

yMartin Kowarsch, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)

y Global environmental assessments (GEAs) are large-scale social

processes where multiple experts and stakeholders assemble, discuss, and synthesize existing scientific knowledge on complex environmental policy issues with a view towards informing public policy discourses and decision makers. Prominent examples include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) processes. There is mounting empirical evidence showing that a shift from problem-focused GEAs drawn predominantly from natural science expertise, towards solution-oriented policy assessments that require more inclusive knowledge-domains, is currently underway. There also appears to be an increasing demand for comprehensive ex post and ex ante assessments of environment-related policy options operating at multiple levels of governance, involving multiple governments, and taking into account multiple policy objectives. This panel aims to discuss and inform future research on the challenges, opportunities and options for public policy assessment in contemporary GEAs from theoretical, empirical, and methodological perspectives. It also invites contributions that are not directly related to GEAs, but other large-scale public policy assessments (where scale may refer to thematic scope, number of participants, or regional coverage), either in the environmental or other policy domains (e.g. public health) so as to enable mutual learning across domains. Potential topics that could be addressed include: The historic co-evolution of GEAs (or similar processes) and their policy contexts; conceptual frameworks for the appreciation of the potential influence of GEAs or similar processes on policy processes and discourses; methodological and research organization challenges concerning the assessment of public policy options in GEAs, including how these exercises can deal with complexity and pervasive uncertainties in knowledge; options for the treatment of ethical issues and disputed divergent viewpoints in policy assessments in GEAs or similar processes; and stakeholder engagement and related considerations about representation, legitimacy, and participatory deliberation in GEAs or similar large-scale public policy assessments.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Via Lanzone VL 102/G153) Jeremy Rayner, University of Saskatchewan

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 11

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 11 y 210

ADVANCING PUBLIC POLICY ASSESSMENT IN GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (GEAS)

The future of global assessments: Occupying a more solutions-oriented and policy relevant space Jason Jabbour, United Nations Environment Programme Christian Flachsland, Mercator Research Intitute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) From GBA to IPBES: Comparative analysis of Global environmental assessments in biodiversity sector Hrabanski Marie, CIRAD Denis Pesche, CIRAD Public policy assessment in global environmental assessments Christian Flachsland, Mercator Research Intitute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) Martin Kowarsch, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) Pauline Riousset, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change Jason Jabbour, United Nations Environment Programme Influence of Global Environmental Assessments on public policy processes Pauline Riousset, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change Martin Kowarsch, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) Christian Flachsland, Mercator Research Intitute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) The treatment of divergent viewpoints in GEAs Martin Kowarsch, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) Christian Flachsland, Mercator Research Intitute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)

211 X

y Notoriously studying “public policy” has meant both: a) the study of how things have been done or should have been done; b) the study for supporting policymakers.

CHAIR

ySession 1 -

yAlessandro Colombo, Éupolis Lombardia,

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL1-02/G153)

Which knowledge for policy-making? The role of research in the Brussels water policy. Nicola Francesco Dotti, Vrije Universiteit Brussel How do the regional authorities use evaluation? Comparative study of Poland and Spain Dominika Wojtowicz, Kozminski University The practical convergence of policy explanation and policy advising David Edwards, University of Texas at Austin

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 12

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 12

IS IT RESEARCH “FOR” POLICY OR RESEARCH “OF” POLICY?

Some argue that the latter meaning is less “scientific research” than the former. Is that the case? Papers are invited to tackle the following questions by means of theoretical and empirical approches. Different profiles and aspects may be chosen out of the following questions (some of the many that could be raised on the issue): • How might the difference between research “of” and research “for” policy determine the methodology approach to the research project? • Under what conditions can policy research be autonomus? • How and by whom can/should this kind of research be financed? • What differences are there between a policy researcher and a practicioner, if any? • How can policy research be not only useful, but also usable? • What is “evidence” in policy advice? And how can it be realised? • How does this initial decision, between research for or of policy, determine the methodolgy and the approach of research? • At what conditions will policy research be autonomous, maintaining its empirical and scientific nature? • How and by whom should this kind of reserch be financed? • What differences are there between a policy researcher and a practicioner, if any?

y 212

213 X

y This panel aims to go beyond the traditional micro and macro approa-

ches to policy analysis and evaluation to understand how to assess overarching policies geared toward development, growth, and structural change in socioeconomic systems. Drawing upon complexity paradigm, this panels intends to explore new theoretical and methodological approaches and present concrete examples of complex program evaluations addressing such complex issues as structural change, adaptation, and innovation, and multi-level coordination among different jurisdictional levels. Panelists are asked to present specific cases of real-world evaluations conducted within Structural Fund Programs, by highlighting the innovativeness of their approach and/or conduct, or develop the theoretical and methodological premises underlying their approach.

CHAIRS

Dept. of Political and Social Sciences

ySession 1 -

-

-

-

y 214

yMita Marra, University of Salernot yFrancesco Mazzeo Rinaldi, University of Catania

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G114)

Evaluation of Cantonal Tobacco Prevention Programs in Switzerland Fritz Sager, University of Bern Susanne Hadorn, Center of competence for public management, University of Bern Céline Mavrot, University of Bern Did the policy work? It depends, which policies are we talking about? The complexity of evaluating complex European policies Erica Melloni, Istituto per la ricerca sociale Flavia Pesce , IRS Manuela Samek, IRS Cristina Vasilescu , IRS Evaluating delivery of Cohesion Policy: Proposal for an analytical framework Olejniczak Karol, EUROREG, University of Warsaw John Bachtler, EPRC, University of Strathclyde Alba Smeriglio, University of Strathclyde Paweł Śliwowski, University of Warsaw, The Centre for European Regional and Local Studies Cohesion Policy Through Complexity Lenses: What Is the Evidence? Francesco Mazzeo Rinaldi, University of Catania - Dept. of Political and Social Sciences Mita Marra, University of Salerno Effective Governance and Evaluation Approaches: Rethinking Complexity in Evaluating Complex Programs Yuval Ofek, The University of Haifa

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 13

TOPIC 08 - PANEL 13

WHAT’S NEW IN POLICY EVALUATION? EXPLORING THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ASSESS COMPLEX PROGRAMS

215 X

y What kind of methods are relevant to study policy process? If the

studies on policy process generally use the traditional method of social sciences to grasp policy process, these studies rarely develop their own original reflection. Considering that policy process is not a classic social phenomenon, we are interested in receiving papers proposals which develop a specific purpose on methodology in policy process. What method for what kind of data collection and with what kind of biases ? The paper proposals may discuss one method in particular such as interview, observation, survey or one specific process.

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 216

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G135) Philippe Zittoun, LET-ENTPE

Reflections relating to the concept of rationality for public policy design in the information age. The use of models based on evidence: new technological considerations. León Juan Carlos, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales Sánchez Pablo, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales Understanding the Welfare Policy Process via Automated Text Analysis Jong Hee Park, Seoul National University The promise of constructivism as a method for studying the policy process David Edwards, University of Texas at Austin A Dual System Approach to the Policy Process Analysis Krzysztof Kasianiuk, Collegium Civitas Party platforms as a dynamic tool for determining an issue’s position on the agenda Michal Neubauer-Shani, Ashkelon Academic College Hadar Lipshits, Ashkelon Academic College

ySession 1 -

yPhilippe Zittoun, LET-ENTPE

TOPIC 09 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 09 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 09 - METHODOLOGIES WHAT METHODOGY TO STUDY POLICY PROCESS?

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G135) Philippe Zittoun, LET-ENTPE

Quantitative analysis of qualitative social data? Assessing methodological potentials and challenges using evidence from a large-n case survey on environmental governance Nicolas Jager, Leuphana University Lüneburg Jens Newig, Leuphana University Lüneburg Edward Challies, Leuphana University Lüneburg Elisa Kochskämper, Leuphana University Lüneburg How Can Q Methodology Assist the Study of the Policy Process? Alberto Asquer, SOAS, University of London Reflections relating to the concept of rationality for public policy design in the information age. The use of models based on evidence: new technological considerations. León Juan Carlos, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales Sánchez Pablo, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México-Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales The KAPSARC Energy Policy Database: Introducing a Quantified Library of China’s Energy Policies Philipp Galkin, KAPSARC

217 X

CHAIR

yBryan Evans, Ryerson University

NON-STATE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE POLICY PROCESS: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES

y New governance theory contends that the policy process has become more accessible to civil society policy actors. Non-state actors include non-profit organizations, trade unions, think tanks, foundations, and industry associations.

While there is a robust literature examining policy capacity and processes within the state, our knowledge of the role, capacity, and best practices of civil society organizations is comparatively impoverished. Papers presented in this panel will address the policy capacity of civil society organizations, the degree to which societal power relationships are replicated in cases of policy co-production, best practices in policy co-production and engagement, and how the effect of institutional, political and historical factors influence and shape policy styles of civil society organizations.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

Proactive or protective? Pioneers or partners? Dimensions and correlates of successful policy change by nonprofit organizations Steven Smith, American Political Science Association The Role of Transnational Actors in Building Climate-Resilient Cities: Case Studies on Dagupan City and Sorsogon City Ebinezer Florano, Center for Policy and Executive Development What do MP’s think about the policy capacity of environmental NGO Brian Coffey, Deakin University Building and Maintaining Policy Capacity in a Turbulent Environment: The Case of Community Organizations for Immigrants Integration in Québec Francis Garon, Glendon College / York University

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G121) Adam Wellstead, Michigan Technological University

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 10 - PUBLIC POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND POLICYMAKERS

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G121) Kathy Brock, Queen’s University

Non-State Organisations in the City Policy Process: a Perspective from the US Madeleine Pill, University of Sydney When and How Philanthropic Foundations Engage With Policy Making. A “normative” comparison between US and EU for the Enhancement of Social Innovation Giulio Pasi, Institute of Advanced Study of Pavia Advocating for Low Waged Workers: Assessing Policy Capacity and Strategies of Social Justice Organizations Bryan Evans, Ryerson University Co-producing Performance Indicators in Home and Community Care: Assessing the Role of NGOs in Three Canadian Provinces John Shields, Ryerson University / Janet Lum, Ryerson University / Bryan Evans, Ryerson University

ySession 3 DISCUSSANT -

-

y 218

Andrea Migone, Institute of Public Administration of Canada

Arab Civil Society Actors and Policy-Making in Times of Uncertainty: What Follows the Arab Uprisings? Nasser Yassin, American University of Beirut Policy process and party manifestos production in Czech Republic Michel Perottino, Institute of political science, Faculty of social sciences, Charles University in Prague, / Vilém Novotný, Charles University in Prague, Department of Public and Social Policy / Martin Polášek, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Department of Political Science Interest groups’ lobbying strategies in eu policy making: comparative perspective Meta Novak, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of social sciences / Mitja Hafner-Fink, University of Ljubljana, / Danica Fink-Hafner, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences Innovation of Local Government and Civil Society. Construction of Strategic Public Policies from the Complementarity of Representation. The Case of the City of Buenos Aires Alejandro M. Liberman, Libertad y Progreso Foundation

219 X

y This panel seeks papers, both qualitative and quantitative, which

explore how state elites (deputy ministers, permanent secretaries, Chief executives of state corporations etc., and senior policy staff) understand and respond to the changing political and economic context in which they function. Specific issues could include state elite perceptions and framing of challenges such as public service renewal, fiscal constraints, policy capacity, labour relations, managing the public service-political relationship, role in constructing and managing new governance relationships with non-state actors, and policy priority determination. The expanding role and powers of the centre of government has meant that those occupying key positions at the apex of state institutions provide an increasingly pivotal role in managing and planning. The rising interest in public sector leadership is a reflection of this. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, the Institute of Public Administration Australia, and the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand have recently completed a broad-based survey of national and sub-national public service leaders. Through this panel the results of this survey-based research will be presented. In addition, this panel seeks to deepen our knowledge of state elites, both the executive cadre as well as policy workers, by inviting papers, both qualitative and quantitative, which explore how state elites (deputy ministers, permanent secretaries, Chief Executives Officers of state corporations, senior policy staff and so forth) understand and respond to the changing political and economic context in which they function.

y 220

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

yBryan Evans, Ryerson University

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL0-01/G053) Thurid Hustedt, University of Potsdam

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 02

PERSPECTIVES AND PRACTICES OF STATE EXECUTIVES AND POLICY ELITES: COMPARATIVE UNDERSTANDINGS

Public Service Elites Post-Financial Crisis: A Comparison of Canadian and Australian Public Executive Perspectives Bryan Evans, Ryerson University The making of political elites. A cross-hierarchical comparison of executive bureaucrats’ in German federal ministries. Falk Ebinger, Universität Konstanz Framing the environment as a policy issue: What do MP’s think? Brian Coffey, Deakin University Gendered Perspectives - Findings from a Mulitnational Survey of Public Service Professionals Andrea Migone, Institute of Public Administration of Canada Kathy Brock, Queen’s University Rising Tensions or Productive Disharmony? Comparing the Political and Permanent Executive Interface in Three Parliamentary Democracies Kathy Brock, Queen’s University Andrea Migone, Institute of Public Administration of Canada Of Foxes and Lions – Towards a Coherent Micro-Foundation for Blame Avoidance Behavior Markus Hinterleitner, Center of Competence for Public Management, University of Bern Fritz Sager, University of Bern

221 X

y The policy capacity of a government is a key indicator and requisite of

governance success. The term describes the preconditions a government requires in order to make sound policy choices and implement them effectively in achieving its potential to steer a governance mode. Policy capacity is at heart a function of three competences or skills which affect the ability of governments in their relationships with other governance actors: analytical ones which allow policy alternatives to be effectively generated and investigated; managerial ones which allow state resources to be effectively brought to bear on policy issues; and political ones which allow policy-makers and managers the room to manouevre and support required to develop and implement their ideas, programs and plans (Wu et al 2010; Tiernan and Wanna 2006; Gleeson et al 2009; Gleeson et al 2011; Fukuyama 2013; Rotberg 2014). These skills or competences are crucial to policy and governance success. However they also rely on their availability and the availability of adequate resources to allow them to be mobilized. These resources or capabilities must exist at the individual level which allow individual policy workers (Colebatch 2006; Colebatch et al 2011) and managers (Howlett and Walker 2012) to participate in and contribute to designing, deploying, and evaluating policies. It includes not only their ability to analyse but also to learn and adapt to changes as necessary. Defining and operationalizing policy capacity is a very important, but only the first, step in applying the concept to the better understanding of policy making and especially issues about the quality of policy making and governance issues. The general idea, of course, is that higher levels of capacity are linked to superior policy outputs and outcomes while capacity deficits may be a major cause of policy failure and sub-optimal outcomes (Bullock 2001; Canadian Government 1996).

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA114) Xun Wu, National University of Singapore

Local policy capacity for land use regulation: a empirical examination for Swiss municipalities Tobias Schulz, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL Evolutionary economics and state capacities Erkki Karo, Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology. Blending Skill and Resources Across Multiple Levels of Activity: Competences, Capabilities and the Policy Capacities of Government MIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University Xun Wu, National University of Singapore Policy capacity within federations: The case of Australia Scott Brenton, University of Melbourne

ySession 2 -

yMIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 03 y 222

POLICY CAPACITY: EMPIRICAL EXPLORATIONS AND CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA114) Xun Wu, National University of Singapore

Different Policy Weight and Capacity throughout the process of policy change Seyed Mohamad Sadegh Emamian, Edinburgh University The role of analysts in public agencies: Toward an empirically grounded typology Olejniczak Karol, EUROREG, University of Warsaw Paweł Śliwowski, University of Warsaw, The Centre for European Regional and Local Studies Rafal Trzcinski, Foundation IDEA for Development Policy analytical culture investigated: What explains the use of policy analytical techniques? Ellen Fobé, Public Governance Institute, Catholic University Leuven Valérie PATTYN, Public Governance Institute, Catholic University Leuven Governmentalities without policy capacity Gloria Regonini, Dipartimento di scienze sociali e politiche Università degli studi di Milano

223 X

yOnce upon a time they may have lived in the dark, but in recent years

political advisers – variously described as special advisers, ministerial advisers or exempt staff – have attracted a good deal of academic attention. However, the connections between the work being done on political advisers and proximate policy theories remain substantially under-articulated. In this panel we wish to make those linkages explicit by firmly locating the empirical and theoretical study of political advisers in a context set by extant literatures concerning policy work and theory. These include but are not limited to policy advisory activity, the construction and management of policy agendas, formulation, and decision-making and implementation studies. In that context, this panel calls for papers that explicitly connect an empirical, methodological and/or theoretical focus on political advisers with theories of the wider policy process. Papers are also welcome that seek to reappraise and refine existing policy process theory through the lens of political advisers, or examine related policy dynamics including policy learning and change, policy failure, and the interplay between different kinds of policy actors – administrative, political, and non-governmental – in the context of the policy process. In the interests of deepening and broadening the foundations of our field, we also welcome new empirical contributions, and papers elaborating methodological or theoretical means of understanding the immediacy of life on the ground for political advisers.

y 224

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

-

-

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G108)

Temporary staff in an institutionalised role: Irish special advisers and the ‘black box’ of the public policy process Bernadette Connaughton, University of Limerick From advising to policy formulation and decision-making? Investigating the growing role of ministerial advisors Kristoffer Kolltveit, Dept. of political science, University of Oslo Thurid Hustedt, University of Potsdam Heidi Salomonsen, Aalborg The development of advisory institutions Maria Maley, Australian National University

ySession 2 -

yRichard Shaw, Massey University yJonathan Craft, University of Toronto, yChris Eichbaum, Victoria University of Wellington

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 04

POLITICAL ADVISERS, POLICY THEORY AND THE POLICY PROCESS

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G108)

The political space-time continuum: Ministers, political advisers and the passage of time Richard Shaw, Massey University Chris Eichbaum, Victoria University of Wellington Beyond Blame Avoidance: Partisan Advisers, Policy Learning, and Political Policy Failure Avoidance Jonathan Craft, University of Toronto Political Advisers and Policy Making in Ministerial Cabinet Systems: the Cases of Belgium, Greece and the European Commission Athanassios Gouglas, Public Governance Institute, Catholic University Leuven Marleen Brans, Public Governance Institute, , Catholic University Leuven The Dog That Did Not Bark – Political Advisers and the Risk of Policy Failure Birgitta Niklasson, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg Peter Munk Christiansen, University of Aarhus Patrik Öhberg, Department of Political Science

225 X

y Public policy is becoming increasingly confounded by transnational policy challenges. The proliferation of global policy dilemmas - climate change, migration, terrorism and economic instability, and so on - diminishes domestic officials’ capacity to deliver local policy outcomes without some form of international collaboration. This ‘global-local dilemma’ triggers substantial concerns of how policy officials reconcile international and domestic imperatives in managing modern transnational policy challenges, and whether they are adequately equipped to do so.

Public policy scholars predominantly conceptualise international influences on domestic policy via the policy transfer framework, which stresses policy officials’ agency and, especially, ideational propinquity with states with similar cultural, political or legal frameworks. Meanwhile, International Relations scholars tend to favour a ‘global governance’ approach to considering transnational challenges, relinquishing agency in favour of structural imperatives. Although, separately, these two scholarly cohorts offer considerable insights into the domestic and international implications of global policy issues, the overlap and interplay of these perspectives remains relatively unexplored. There are promising avenues of research; for example, in recent years a nascent literature on transgovernmentalism has identified discrete network arrangements between state officials that operate informally to share ideas, policies and expertise on shared policy dilemmas. However, significant questions remain: How do domestic officials understand transnational policy problems? What strategies do they pursue to overcome transnational policy problems? Does international collaboration produce policies without a domestic democratic mandate?

CHAIRS

yTim Legrand, National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy

yHélène Caune, Università degli studi di Milano yAngie Gago, Università degli Studi di Milano

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Nirone NI 111) Paolo Roberto Graziano, Bocconi University Hélène Caune, Università degli studi di Milano

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 06

PUBLIC POLICY AND THE GLOBAL-LOCAL DILEMMA

How does implementation of a restrictive immigration policy impact the U.S. workforce? Evaluating E-Verify through a social justice framework. Katie Galvin, California State University, Stanislaus Beyond better borders? Policy dilemmas of transnational security threats Tim Legrand, National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy Defining multi-level dynamics of Europeanization - Uses, strategies and perceptions of national social partners towards the SSDC Electricity Sara Lafuente, Université Libre de Bruxelles The politics of pension reform during the Great Recession: Southern European trade unions facing EU conditionality Angie Gago, Università degli Studi di Milano

This panel welcome papers that address transnational policy dilemmas and/or endeavour to reconcile domestic/international conceptual perspectives on public policy from the fields of public policy, public administration, organization theory, international relations and political science, or any other related field.

y 226

227 X

yStephen Jones, University of Queensland, yGeert Bouckaert, Public Governance Institute, Catholic University Leuven

y National and subnational governments have been dealing with the

challenges emerging from implementation of performance management requirements including the relevance of the measures, data quality, cultural change, fiscal risk and federal scrutiny of state responsibilities. These experiences are providing considerable challenges for practitioners working across levels of government and sectors. International experience in federal systems confirms that government wide policies need to be flexible and recognise these differences within intergovernmental dimensions.The aim of this panel is to analyse the application of performance management systems when governments collaborate for service delivery. Papers will extend current analysis and debate and incorporate various federal contexts.

y 228

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Via Lanzone VL2-04/G253)

Local Government Performance and Federal Relations in Post-Decentralized Brazil, India and South Africa Helder Ferreira do Vale, Hankuk University Performance Federalism: A Model for Analysis Stephen Jones, University of Queensland Geert Bouckaert, Public Governance Institute, Catholic University Leuven Data availability on the performance of local public sector in Brazil and four developed federations Murilo Junqueira, University of São Paulo Decentralization as design of intergovernmental relations to deliver social policies in the Brazilian federalism after 1988 Eduardo Grin, Fundaçao Getulio Vargas Fernando Abrucio, Fundação Getulio Vargas

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 07

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 07

PERFORMANCE FEDERALISM

229 X

y This panel asks the following questions: What are the connections

between policy learning and policy change? What institutional, social and individual factors stimulate policy learning? What learning outcomes do they elicit? Does learning cause policy change? Does policy change induce policy learning? What are the cognitive and social processes between the factors of policy learning and policy change? How can effective policy learning be promoted in policy processes? This panel is organised in the context of an international special issue project to be submitted to the Policy & Society Journal. The panel proposal is submitted under the subject category “Public policy, administration and policymakers”, sponsored by this Journal. The panel includes an introductory paper and a number of individual papers that bring original empirical case studies on the role of policy learning in policy dynamics as well as theorise the relation between policy learning and change from different policy science perspectives. The following perspectives are already represented in our project: network theory, advocacy coalition framework, frame analysis, co-creation processes, evidence-based policymaking and epistemic communities. While we do not exclude hosting other paper/s anchored in one of those perspectives, we mostly welcome papers that represent other policy perspectives considering the role that learning does or does not play in policy change (e.g. socio-cognitive institutionalism, cultural theory, policy learning and transfer or diffusion, etc.)

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

-

-

-

-

y 230

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G022)

Learning theory and the policy process Claire Dunlop, University of Exeter / Claudio Radaelli, University of Exeter Learning in co-creation processes: An international comparison William Voorberg, Erasmus University Rotterdam Ruling out learning and change? Lessons from Urban Flood Mitigation Antje Witting, University of Konstanz / Deborah Kallee, University of Konstanz Can learning contribute to fundamental policy change? Policy frames, policy change and migrant integration policies in the Netherlands Peter Scholten, Erasmus University Rotterdam

ySession 3 -

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G022)

Designing participatory and collaborative governance: Governance learning in EU Floods Directive implementation Jens Newig, Leuphana University Lüneburg / Elisa Kochskämper, Leuphana University Lüneburg Edward Challies, Leuphana University Lüneburg / Nicolas Jager, Leuphana University Lüneburg Local knowledge sharing and street-level policy change. The comparative analysis of Schengen visa policy implementation in Morocco. Federica Infantino, université Libre de Bruxelles / Sciences Po Paris Empirical learning and policy change in the Advocacy Coalition Framework: Do policymakers opt for new policies that are consistent with their normative beliefs? Stéphane Moyson, Erasmus University Rotterdam The agility and resilience of epistemic communities in international policy learning Claire Dunlop, University of Exeter

ySession 2 -

yStéphane Moyson, Erasmus University Rotterdam yPeter Scholten, Erasmus University Rotterdam yChristopher Weible, University of Colorado Denver

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 08

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 08

POLICY LEARNING & POLICY CHANGE: THEORIZING THE RELATION FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G022)

Re-thinking the policy learning argument in the context of the post-communist healthcare policy reforms in the Czech Republic Tamara Popic, European University Institute Looking at policy learning and paradigm shift in the Belgian mental health system: using the inscribed, embodied and enacted phenomenology Sophie Thunus, University of Liege Frederic Schoenaers, University of Liège Learning or Motivated Reasoning? The Role of Science in Fracking Policy Eric Montpetit, Université de Montréal / Erick Lachapelle, Université de Montréal Policy Learning and Policy Networks in Theory and Practice: Structural and Behavioural Issues in Policy-Making Over Time Joop Koppenjan, Erasmus University rotterdam / MIchael Howlett, Simon Fraser University Ishani Mukherjee, National University of SIngapore

231 X

y Street-level organizations (SLOs) are central to the work of the state.

In recent decades, street-level theory has generated new and varied research agendas and approaches to the study of public policy and politics. Following up on a successful panel at the first ICCP conference, we propose three sessions on street-level research and theory that will offer policy studies adopting diverse research approaches and contribute to identifying promising directions for the field. We particularly invite papers that present original policy research, offer new ways of conceptualising and theorising research, and/or address new research problems. The sessions focus on three, broad topics. Policy politics in practice (Brodkin 1987). We propose to raise questions about the role of street-level organisations in welfare state politics. What does the study of street-level organisations bring to the study of power and politics? How do SLOs mediate policy possibilities and political voice and how are they affected by governance and management reforms? The digital street level. This session examines the use of technologies and new media in fulfilling public tasks (cf. Buffat 2013). Empirically, little is known yet about the various ways through which new technologies are experienced in street-level organisations how are they are transforming street-level work. Street-level work in context. This session approaches street-level work in and across institutional contexts. In the relationships between factors enabling and constraining public task fulfilment public service gaps may be observed (cf. Hupe and Buffat 2014). Documenting and exploring these factors in varying contexts is the topic here. These topics, while distinct, also overlap and inform one another, with the panels designed to promote conversation across themes. We welcome contributions from both junior and senior scholars reflecting diverse national political-administrative contexts, policy sectors, types of organisations, and international or comparative perspectives. Papers may be theoretically or empirically focused.

y 232

CHAIRS

yAurélien Buffat, University of Lausanne yEvelyn Brodkin, University of Chicago yPeter Hupe, Dept. of Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

On the Road towards Marketization? - Nonprofit Social Service Delivery and the Changing Role and Function of Street Level Bureaucrats Steven Smith, American Political Science Association Disciplining, emancipating or both? An Assessment and explanation of the heterogeneity of street-level activation practices towards young unemployed in Flanders (Belgium) Liesbeth Van Parys, Research Institute for Work and Society and Centre for Sociological Research, University of Leuven ‘Nobody’s Servant’: Public Transit Inspectors in a Context of Cultural Individualism Peter HUPE, Dept. of Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam A Street-Level Perspective on Privatization’s Promise: Teacher Autonomy and Accountability in Public and Charter Schools Zachary Oberfield, Haverford College Street-Level Bureaucrats Making Exceptions and Bending the Rules for Favored or Sympathetic Clients: Informal Payments for Health Care in Israel Nissim Cohen, University of Haifa

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G005) Steven Maynard-Moody, University of Kansas

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 09

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 09

THE STATE AT THE LEVEL OF THE STREET: STREET-LEVEL ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G005) Nissim Cohen, University of Haifa

Europeanization at the level of the street. Insights from the comparative analysis of visa policy implementation in Morocco Federica Infantino, Université Libre de Bruxelles/Sciences Po Paris Result based management meets welfare organizations - A country comparative study of result based management at the frontline of the welfare state. Marie Østergaard Møller, KORA Vibeke Normann Andersen, KORA - The Danish Institute for Local and Re-gional Government Research, Governance and Welfare State Politics: What Could the US and Denmark Possibly Have in Common? Evelyn Brodkin, university of Chicago Flemming Larsen, Aalborg University, Department of Political Science Shared Technology, Competing Logics: How Healthcare Providers and Law Enforcement Agents Use Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs to Combat Prescription Drug Abuse Liz Chiarello, Saint Louis University “Street-level Bureaucrats in the digital state and the need for dialogue” John Storm Pedersen, University of Southern Denmark Peter Aagaard, Roskilde University

233 X

y Co-production is of interest to both research and practice but despi-

te the fact that it has been the focus of many scholars in diverse fields, there have been too few opportunities for exchange across disciplines and approaches. We propose a panel that sheds light on the following topics, among others: • Co-production and policy change: conceptual tools • Administrative traditions and co-production practices: do institutions matter? • Co-production and co-design: similarities and differences • Managerial challenges of co-production • Performance evaluation of co-production • Conceptualising the revolutionary or evolutionary nature of policy change related to co-production • Comparing co-production in different national and policy contexts • Co-production in health care services: patient engagement and unwilling clients • Co-production and local public utilities • Technologies supporting co-production policies

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

-

-

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Via Lanzone VL 2-05/G151)

The social outcome of co-production in healthcare protected discharges Gaia Viviana Bassani, University of Bergamo Cristiana Cattaneo, University of Bergamo Giovanna Galizzi, University of Bergamo Managing COmplexity To Make Co-production Policies Work Marco De Marco, Uninettuno Co-production in healthcare service delivery: managing the innovation genie Chiara Guglielmetti, Università degli Studi di Milano, Marta Marsilio, Università degli Studi di Milano Silvia Gilardi, Università degli studi di Milano

ySession 2 -

yTina Nabatchi, Maxwell School, Syracuse University yMaddalena Sorrentino, Università degli Studi di Milano yMariafrancesca Sicilia, University of Bergamo

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 10

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 10

PUBLIC PROBLEM-SOLVING THROUGH CO-PRODUCTION

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Via Lanzone VL 2-05/G151)

Organizing co-production and contexts: the development of e-services for the elderly Paolo Depaoli, LUISS “Guido Carli” University, Rome, Italy Citizen’s engagement and value co-production in smart and sustainable cities Walter Castelnovo, University of Insubria Gianluca Misuraca, European Commission, JRC-IPTS Alberto Savoldelli, Independent researcher The impacts of social media on public services co-production: from users’ engagement to the state 2.0 Walter Castelnovo, University of Insubria

Papers may be either theoretically or empirically focused. The panel encourages submissions that reflect diverse political-administrative contexts and is open to contributions from any perspective useful to providing concrete ideas and lines of action. The panel has a strong international and inter-disciplinary orientation, and both junior and senior researchers are invited to participate.

y 234

235 X

y Public policy researchers traditionally analyse policy dynamics using

several theoretical models and approaches to explain why and how change - and no change - occurs, and to analyse the resulting pattern (incremental, termination, succession, policy shifts, and/or perpetuation/stasis). In order to do so, researchers mainly focus on ideational dimensions, institutional determinants, social constructions, and political and power-related processes as key explanatory variables. But mainly - and no matter the lenses used - researchers have analysed and explained policy changes centered on the way policy instruments (and policy mixes) change, considering policy change and the changes in policy instruments as equivalent. In most cases, change in policy instruments is both considered the materialisation of policy change (that is, the unquestionable evidence that a change effectively occurs) and related, as the main source of evidence that make it possible to test and make improvements for theory development). Public policy is both means and ends. As Howlett reminds us, policy designs are both the processes and outcomes (2011). Taking into account outcomes, we may analyse both independent variables (policy change and policy instrument’s change) and say that it is also possible that a policy change effectively occurs when the strategies or processes are oriented to reactivate an existing - but out of use - policy designs, that is to say, a policy change without policy instruments change. Conversely, a policy mix change does not necessarily mean that a policy change effectively occurs, when change is mainly oriented - or has as main objective and a desirable trajectory- to develop outcomes based on stasis and/or perpetuation. Given these challenges, we believe it is necessary to deepen our understanding of the existing relationship (and the necessary differentiation) between policy change (ends and outcomes) and policy instruments change (means and processes), assuming both as analytically separable phenomena. Our goal is to explore policy change analysis taking into account this differentiation. This panel will welcome case studies and/or theoretical contributions, to understand the role that the use of an actor’s deliberate strategies for policy change may play.

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA112) Jose luis Mendez, El Colegio de Mexico Mauricio Olavarria-Gambi, University of Santiago, Chile

From policy tools to instrumental process : the « efficiency » at stake Two case-studies from the path-dependent education system in France Hélène Buisson-Fenet, National Center of scientific research (CNRS) - Ecole Normale Supérieure of Lyon Eric Verdier, LEST - Aix-Marseille University Conceptualizing “Instrumental revival” and “lampedusian” strategies in policy change analysis Cesar Nicandro Cruz-Rubio, GIGAPP. Research Group in Government, Administration and Public Policy Maria Velasco, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Ideas and institutions in policy change: the case of non-state actors participation in the Ecuadorian and Colombian oil policy Guillaume Fontaine, FLACSO The change in basic education policies in Mexico: tension between policy and politics Gloria Del Castillo, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales Implementation as Policy Change: The case of the Chilean Public Management Modernization Policy Mauricio Olavarria-Gambi, University of Santiago, Chile

ySession 2 -

yMaria Velasco, Universidad Complutense De Madrid

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 11

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 11 y 236

POLICY CHANGE AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS CHANGE: ENDS, MEANS, PROCESSES, OUTCOMES

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA112) Jose luis Mendez, El Colegio de Mexico Mauricio Olavarria-Gambi, University of Santiago, Chile

The Effectiveness of Contemporary Environmental Policy Instruments in Mexico Marco Berger, University of Guadalajara Institutional changes in fiscal regimes: The design of a new financial architecture for Venezuela (1999-2010) Cecilia Medrano-Caviedes, Sciences Po, Paris Housing policies as social assistance policy instruments? An analysis of the Lombardy case Olga Fazzini, Éupolis Lombardia Luigi Nava, Éupolis Lombardia Actor strategies and policy instruments within the policy change model: One element of the complex explanation Nikola Baketa, Faculty of Political Science, Zagreb Tihomir Žiljak, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Political Science

237 X

CHAIRS

y Political agency in the policy process is a highly relevant but a so-

ySession 1

mewhat neglected theme today. Political agency can be defined as actors that can create and change procedural and substantial rules and norms of the policy process as well as directly influence value allocations between policy areas and groups of citizens. The aim of the panel Political Agency in the Policy Process is to increase our knowledge on the meaning and character of political agency in the policy process; the importance of contextual factors that tend to open up for different forms of political agency; and consequences and effects of political agency in terms of policy influence, power, and democratic legitimacy. The panel invites empirical, theoretical, as well as normative contributions on political agency in the policy process from different scholarly fields (policy analysis, institutional theory, public administration research, and planning studies) as well as from different research areas in order to jointly achieve a comparative overview that can help us synthesise and theorise. In particular, we are interested in papers that address issues within these three themes:

DISCUSSANTS -

-

yJan Olsson, Örebro University yErik Hysing, Örebro University

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Santa Agnese SA325) Jan Olsson, Örebro University Erik Hysing, Örebro University

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 12

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 12

POLITICAL AGENCY IN THE POLICY PROCESS

The formalization of activism in the local administration on public administrators with strategic positions Petra Svensson, School of Public Administration Magdalena Zeijlon, School of global studies Policy Entrepreneurs in the Picture: the Who, What, Why, and How Stijn Brouwer, KWR Watercycle Research Institute Dave Huitema, VU University Amsterdam -IVM Political Agency from a Discourse Perspective: The Discursive Agency Approach Sina Leipold, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg Georg Winkel, University of Freiburg Politics as Institutional Subversion Jan Olsson, Örebro University Legitimating Inside Activism? Erik Hysing, Örebro University Jan Olsson, Örebro University

• What type of policy actors operate as political agents and how can they be theoretically conceptualised (policy entrepreneurs, street-level actors, inside activists etc.)? • What type of contexts – such as institutional rules and norms, administrative organisations and professional networks – tend to give rise to political agency? • What are the likely consequences and effects of different types of political agency when it comes to policy influence, power and democratic legitimacy?

y 238

239 X

y

In the past two decades, there has been an explosion of interest in political/ policy entrepreneurship (PE) which has resulted in substantial advances in literature. Originally a structural component of Kingdon’s (1984) Multiple Streams, the entrepreneurial actor is now considered an element in all policy process theories (Mintrom and Norman, 2009). Political/policy entrepreneurs are special actors, embedded in the socio-political fabric, who are alert to the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities and act upon them; they seek to effect change and they are team players (Mintrom, 2015; Petridou, Narboutaité-Aflaki and Miles, 2015). At the same time, policy entrepreneurship has been evolving as an actor-based perspective in its own right, aimed at examining the agency of individuals at the micro level with a view to understanding the dynamics of policy change at the meso and macro levels. For the PE perspective to further evolve, contextual components that foster or hinder entrepreneurship in the polis have to be examined more closely. What is more, if PE is a team sport (Mintrom, 2014), how do policy entrepreneurs interact with their teams and what strategies do they employ in order to affect change? We seek papers that develop contextual factors influencing the emergence of PE as well as papers that open interdisciplinary dialogues with, for example, foreign policy, resilience, crisis management and international relations. We welcome an examination of PE from a critical perspective, addressing issues of democracy and accountability and the cui bono question as well as comparative studies.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 240

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA222) Inga Narbutaite Aflaki, Karlstad University

Policy Entrepreneurs beyond Borders: Integrating the Concept of Policy Entrepreneurship with the Study of Transnational Policy Processes Sébastien Jodoin, McGill University Legislative policy entrepreneurs and policy change the strategies legislators use to bring about policy change Jan Seifert, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA) The formulation of the Bolsa Família Programme: a critical review of the role played by high-level public sector executives Fabio Andrade, Getulio Vargas Foundation, Fernanda Lima e Silva, Fundação Getúlio Vargas Failure Is An Option John Carroll, Nova Southeastern University

ySession 2 -

yEvangelia Petridou, Mid-Sweden University yLee Miles, Loughborough University

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 13

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 13

ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE POLIS: POLITICAL ENTREPRENEURS, POLICY MAKING, AND DIVERSE CONTEXTS

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA222) Gertrud Alirani, Mid Sweden University

Disaggregating Policy Entrepreneurship in European Public Policy: Greening the Common Agricultural Policy Katharina Rietig, De Montfort University Policy Entrepreneurs as the Drivers of Tailored Innovation Policies: The Case of Paper Province Lee Miles, Loughborough University Inga Narbutaite Aflaki, Karlstad University Mer [*] Östersund. Social network analysis of a regional development process in Northern Sweden Evangelia Petridou, Mid-Sweden University Policy entrepreneurs in their relational context: reflections from a study of the newborn screening program revision process in Quebec Marie-Andree Paquette, Ecole nationale d’administration publique (ENAP) Lise Lamothe, University of Montreal Daniel Reinharz, Laval University

241 X

y This panel welcomes papers concerned with widening understan-

dings of policy integration theoretically and empirically. From the need to coordinate fiscal policy across Europe, concerns about security and terrorism alongside more longstanding problems such as social exclusion, biodiversity loss and climate change, policy integration is back in vogue. Such problems are often called ‘wicked’ as they are characterized by, among other things, issue and knowledge complexity and the need to deal with responses from multiple sectors, actors and governance levels. Often policy integration is conceptualised as either a process of governing, as policy outputs and/or policy outcomes (Jordan and Lenschow 2010; Adelle and Russel 2013, Howlett and Rayner 2007). As a process of governing, policy integration is closely linked to policy coordination. We do know that coordination is challenged due to conflicting interests within and across sectors (Scharpf 1994) and the difficulty organisations have handling complex issues (Simon, 1947, 1997). However, there is a dearth of detailed theoretical and empirical accounts examining different forms of coordination in practice as well as the effectiveness of different forms. As for policy outputs and outcomes the literature is short on precise measures and applicability across policy contexts - in other words, how do we assess whether policy integration has been achieved? This panel welcomes papers that seek to advance understanding of policy integration as a process, output or outcome from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. Papers can be wholly theoretical or a combination of empirical findings and theory. Empirically-oriented papers may focus on one or more policy domains and/or political systems.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

yDuncan Russel, University of Exeter yHelle Ørsted Nielsen, Aarhus University

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Via Lanzone VL1-03) Anne Jensen, Aarhus University

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 14

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 14 y 242

POLICY INTEGRATION AND THE COORDINATION OF WICKED PROBLEMS

Climate Policy integration across Europe: Assessing climate adaptation through policy process measures Helle Ørsted Nielsen, Aarhus University Anne Jensen, Aarhus University Eleni Karali, Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC) Policy integration as analytical perspective – understanding objects, modes and mechanisms Basil Bornemann, University of Basel, Sustainability Science The ‘greening of EU regional policies - fashion or fading? Andrea Lenschow, University of Osnabrueck Joerg Baudner, University of Osnabrueck The dimensions of policy integration: design, structures and results. Cynthia Michel, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE) Guillermo Cejudo, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas CIDE Environmental policy integration in local decision making: steering towards “Environmental policy integration in local decision making: steering towards sustainability or heading for a halt Gertrud Alirani, Department of social science, Mid Sweden University

243 X

y “Evidence based policies” are now identified objects in the field of poli-

cy analysis (Boaz et al. 2008). Beyond the production and use of scientific evidence, and the involvement of experts, the panel will focus on the organisations dedicated to the producing evidence for public policies. Far from being restricted to academic actors, the production of evidence rests on dedicated administrative organisations paying attention to their credibility (Carpenter, 2010; Jennings, Hall, 2012). Often located at a distance from political decision, they are able to gather, structure and publicise evidence in their field. This evolution concerns several policy domains, such as health (with the use of evidence-based medicine), education, social care, security (with the use of evidence-based criminology), transport or development (with the role of J-PAL) for example. These new administrative organisations, often labeled “agencies”, are herein characterised as “evidence based bureaucracies” in order to focus on two main analytical traits: (1) the use of evidence is highly structured by standards and protocols, which gives them a bureaucratic flavor (Yesilkagit, 2004 ; Benamouzig, Besançon, 2005); (2)at the same time, a high level of openness to non-state actors, like experts, citizens or interest groups, gives them an inclusive and deliberative aspect (Moffit, 2010). We are interested in papers tackling the following issues and questions: -The issue of actors. Who are the actors involved in these evidence based bureaucracies? How far are they “new” policy actors? What roles do they play in these organisations? How far are their representations of the public policies concerned transformed by their involvement in evidence based bureaucracies? -The issue of the autonomy (Carpenter, 2001) of evidence based bureaucracies, in their relationship to other public administrations and to dominant policy actors in the policy domain concerned (for instance the pharmaceutical industry in the health policy field). How far are they steering at a distance (Kickert, 1995) a policy domain for the State? -The issue of the impact of these evidence based bureaucracies on public policies. Are these agencies involved in policy decision processes? How far are evidence based knowledge and methods used by other actors in the concerned policy domains? What policy change related to these new administrative organisations can be observed?

y 244

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

-

-

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Via Lanzone VL1-02/G153)

Evidence-based and open: myths and reality of policy-making David Osimo, UOC Cristiano Codagnone, London School of Economics When evidence is not so obvious… Knowledge-based regulations and configurations of educating-States Hélène Buisson-Fenet, National Center of scientific research (CNRS) Ecole Normale Supérieure of Lyon Xavier Pons, University of East Paris CRéteil Experiment, evaluate and transform public policies : about a French experiment Jean Bérard, Université de Montréal The role of Scientific Standards in the Agency-Industry relationship: an empirical analysis Cyril Benoit, Sciences Po Bordeaux - The University of Sheffield

ySession 2 -

yPatrick Hassenteufel, University of Versailles yBenamouzig Daniel, CNRS / Sciences Po (CSO-LIEPP) yMagali Robelet, University Lyon 2

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 15

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 15

EVIDENCE BASED BUREAUCRACIES AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF PUBLIC POLICIES

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL1-02/G153)

Evidence-based bureaucratization and the regulation of pharmaceuticals in Germany Patrick Hassenteufel, University of Versailles Health Technology Assessment and Bureaucratic Alignment Benamouzig Daniel, CNRS / Sciences Po (CSO-LIEPP) The resistible rise of economic evaluation in a French Healthcare Agency Magali Robelet, University Lyon 2 Jerome Minonzio, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 The British production of hospital quality indicators: are the organizations independent and independent from whom? Louise Lartigot-Hervier, Sciences Po Paris - LIEPP A “Soft Rationalization” : the Institutionnalization of Quality Indicators in the French Healthcare Sector Hugo Bertillot, Centre de sociologie des Organisations (Sciences Po)

245 X

CHAIRS

Erasmus University Rotterdam

yAurélien Buffat, University of Lausanne

y Street-level organizations (SLOs) are central to the work of the state.

In recent decades, street-level theory has generated new and varied research agendas and approaches to the study of public policy and politics. Following up on a successful panel at the first ICCP conference, we propose three sessions on street-level research and theory that will offer policy studies adopting diverse research approaches and contribute to identifying promising directions for the field. We particularly invite papers that present original policy research, offer new ways of conceptualizing and theorizing research, and/or address new research problems. The sessions focus on three, broad topics. Policy politics in practice (Brodkin 1987). We propose to raise questions about the role of street-level organizations in welfare state politics. What does the study of street-level organizations bring to the study of power and politics? How do SLOs mediate policy possibilities and political voice and how are they affected by governance and management reforms? The digital street level. This session examines the use of technologies and new media in fulfilling public tasks (cf. Buffat 2013). Empirically, little is known yet about the various ways through which new technologies are experienced in street-level organizations and how are they are transforming street-level work.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT -

-

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Santa Agnese SA222) Flemming Larsen, Aalborg University, Department of Political Science

Street-level Work in Context: Implementing Healthcare Policy Vivienne Byers, Dublin Institute of Technology The indeterminate bureaucratic encounter: Bureaucrats’ experiences of uncertainty and ways of knowing in interacting with citizens Nadine Raaphorst, Erasmus University Rotterdam “Inhabited institutions and practice theory: accounting for patterns in frontline worker judgment” Steven Maynard-Moody, University of Kansas The ambiguity of illegality. How police officers in the Dutch Aliens, Identification and Migration Crime Unit cope with conflicting logics Kim Loyens, Utrecht University Preventive Social Polices and Role Perceptions at the Street-level Gitte Sommer Harrits, Aarhus University, Department of Political Science

ySession 2

-

Street-level work in context. This session approaches street-level work in and across institutional contexts. In the relationships between factors enabling and constraining public task fulfilment public service gaps may be observed (cf. Hupe and Buffat 2014). Documenting and exploring these factors in varying contexts is the topic here. These topics, while distinct, also overlap and inform one another, with the panels designed to promote conversation across themes. We welcome contributions from both junior and senior scholars reflecting diverse national political-administrative contexts, policy sectors, types of organizations, and international or comparative perspectives. Papers may be theoretically or empirically focused.

y 246

yEvelyn Brodkin, University of Chicago yPeter Hupe, Dept. of Public Administration,

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 19

TOPIC 10 - PANEL 19

POLICY MAKING ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF GOVERNMENT

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA222) Marie Østergaard Møller, KORA

Impossible Situations: On the Breakdown of Moral Integrity at the Frontlines of Public Service Zacka Bernardo, Christ’s College, University of Cambridge Working it out. The use of discretion in cross-organisational collaboration Dorte Caswell, Aalborg University Matilde Høybye-Mortensen, KORA Performance management, caseloads and the frontline provision of social services Rik Van Berkel, Utrecht University Discretion and creativity at the frontline of policy Tony Evans, Royal Holloway Univeristy of London Grip on the Neighborhood: Fostering Integrative Collaborative Dynamics in Street Level Work Koen Bartels, Bangor University

247 X

CHAIRS

Higher School of Economics

yDmitry Zaytsev, Higher School of Economics

DISCURSIVE PRACTICES IN PUBLIC POLICY: THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

y Focusing on political actors, contemporary political research develops

various strategies of assessment of power, influence and policy impact, but the majority of commonly recognised approaches do not consider discursive aspect of power and influence. The concept of “soft power” relevant for neoteric social practices emphasises the role of language mechanisms and discursive practices in the policy making process. This panel aims to explore both empirical and theoretical dimensions of public policy analysis through language and discourse.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

We invite the papers which address, the following questions: • What discursive practices related to public policy issues can be defined and described? • What are the discursive foundations for political actorness? • How to evaluate the political influence and policy impact of political actors through discourse? • How to specify discursive practices which establish discursive power? • What is the link between the concept of discursive power and related concepts of soft power, policy impact, political changes, and policy changes; how does the analysis of discursive practices help investigate public policy? • We welcome papers giving theoretical insights into the above-listed issues, or empirical evidence of the discursive activity of political actors, or both.

y 248

yAnna Potsar, National Research Univercity

The “New Turkey” Narrative and Public Policy Change in Turkey Fethi Ufuk Ozisik, Marmara University, Faculty Of Political Sciences Department Of Public Administration (French) The strategies of dialogue between Government and Public on Anti-Recessionary Policy in the UK and France Semenova Anna, Higher School of Economic The effects of Neoliberalism on social ideas, practices & trust. The unfortunate experience of Argentina. Cecilia Guemes, Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales (CEPC)

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G134) Frank Fischer, Rutgers University

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 11 - DISCOURSE AND CRITICAL POLICY RESEARCH

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G134) Marie Østergaard Møller, KORA

Constructing leadership in the hydraulic fracturing controversy in New York Jennifer Dodge, Rockefeller College/University at Albany European Union Discourse on Entrepreneurship: Conceptual and Methodological Issues Laureano Martinez, Universidad Publica de Navarra The discursive practices of public organisations: At the crossroads of critical policy and critical management studies Eleanor Mackillop, INLOGOV University of Birmingham

249 X

y

Since its inception around 1970, environmental policies have challenged incumbent policies, interests and ideas. Hence the role of ideas has always played an important part in environmental policy analysis, and many key concepts about the role of ideas in public policy – and in particular in policy change – have been developed with a view to environmental policy. Since the early 1990s, various approaches to discourse analysis have made important contributions to the understanding of environmental policy while the analysis of policy discourse more generally has often been stimulated by environmental policy problems. Accelerating over the last few years, the analysis of environmental policy discourse has developed in three directions: refinement of methodologies, differentiation of concepts, and analysis of novel and emerging environmental discourses such as the Bio-Economy or the “Amazonian Soil”. Against this background, the aim of the panel is to reflect on the state of the art in the discursive analysis of environmental policy in terms of concepts, methods and content. We invite papers that (1) provide critical assessments of current attempts to advance our understanding of the role of discursive processes in environmental policy, and (2) contribute to a deeper understanding of developments in environmental policy through novel empirical insights into a broad range of old and new environmental discourses. We welcome empirically and theoretically focussed papers from different conceptual traditions, including critical discourse analysis, narrative policy analysis, post-structuralist discourse research, SKAD, argumentative discourse analysis, performativity and practice studies. We particularly welcome papers that review conceptual developments, assess or compare the contribution of single or different discursive approaches to the understanding of environmental policy, or apply discursive approaches to empirical environmental policy analysis. Finally we look for papers discussing the contribution of discursive approaches to critical environmental policy analysis and to better and more inclusive policy.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G024) Frank Fischer, Rutgers University

Administrative cultures and architectures and climate policy discourses in Denmark and Germany Franziska Ehnert, University of Potsdam Discursive Representation and UN Climate Diplomacy Jonathan Kuyper, Stockholm University Karin Bäckstrand, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University The road to Paris: contending climate governance discourses in the post-Copenhagen era Karin Bäckstrand, Stockholm University From Theory to Practice in the Ecological Civilization Discourse: China’s Endeavor in a Global Concern Paolo Davide Farah, West Virginia University

ySession 2 -

yPeter Feindt, Wageningen University and Research Centre yGeorg Winkel, University of Freiburg ySina Leipold, Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 03 y 250

DISCOURSES IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY LESSONS LEARNT AND NEW PERSPECTIVES

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G024) Marie Østergaard Møller, KORA

Discoursive change: How bioeconomy matters Helga Pülzl, EFICEEC @ Institute of Forest Environmental and Natural Resource Policy at BOKU University, Environmental policy and the paradoxes of transitional discourse in CEE: an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the experiences two former Ministers of Environment Pepijn van Eeden, ULB Discursive analysis of water reform in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin: “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” Jim Donaldson, Australian National University

251 X

y While hydraulic fracking for shale gas caused an ‘energy revolution’ in

the United States that moved to Europe and other place, “fracking” has also caused societal contestations. As more incidents of water contamination and earthquakes occur – and as academic research demonstrates negative environmental impacts – citizens, academics, governmental agencies, and environmental organisations engage in heated policy debates over the desirability of fracking, alternately framing it as an energy game changer, a highly risky technology, a geopolitical force, or a “bridge fuel. ”What is puzzling is that while these frames seem consistent across contexts, the response to fracking varies considerably. For example, many citizens in Poland welcome it, but France has banned it outright. When examining more closely how actors frame fracking in differing contexts, however, one quickly learns that meanings behind words like “energy independence” also vary: for example, it is associated with a post-colonial struggle in Poland but an anti-terrorist sentiment in the US. These meanings can have quite different influences on the way policy actors interpret and present scientific evidence and uncertainties, and make prescriptions for policy and governance. These characteristics suggest that fracking is not merely a technological problem to be resolved with more scientific analysis. Rather, it is an interpretive problem that requires understanding the meaning societal and governmental groups attribute to it, knowledge about it, and its impacts on the environment and energy supplies.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA222) Peter Feindt, Wageningen University and Research Centre

What the frack? - Expertise legitimacy and conflictual interpretation of fracking in France and Quebec Sebastien Chailleux, Sciences Po Bordeaux Dynamic discourse coalitions on hydro-fracking in Europe (the Netherlands) and the United States (New York) Tamara Metze, Tilburg University, Jennifer Dodge, Rockefeller College/University at Albany, Defusing the public controversy over fracking via private participatory arrangements? The case of the “Hydrofracking dialogue” in Germany Basil Bornemann, University of Basel, Sustainability Science, Thomas Saretzki, Center for the Study of Democracy, Leuphana University Lueneburg

ySession 2 -

yJennifer Dodge, Rockefeller College/University at Albany yTamara Metze, Tilburg University

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 04

HYDRAULIC FRACKING FOR SHALE GAS AS AN INTERPRETIVE PROBLEM

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA222) Tamara Metze, Tilburg University Basil Bornemann, University of Basel, Sustainability Science

Fear and Licensing in Australia: Coal seam gas, a social licence to operate and the Twitterati Sara Bice, The University of Melbourne, Framing Dynamics and Policy Gridlock The Curious Case of Hydraulic Fracturing in New York Jennifer Dodge, Rockefeller College/University at Albany The construction and resistance of a political taboo: The case of the French ban on fracking Philippe Zittoun, LET-ENTPE, The Development of Shale Gas in China: Health, Water and Environmental Risks Paolo Davide Farah, West Virginia University

This panel welcomes papers adopting an interpretive perspective to analysing this controversy. Topics may include: boundary work, framing, discourse, the role of experts, and/or the role of scientific and other forms of knowledge. By focusing on interpretation, we aim to surpass basic understandings of seemingly consistent debates across contexts to examine fundamental societal, scientific and political conflicts that enliven controversy in particular contexts. We especially welcome papers investigating cases from non-Western countries.

y 252

253 X

CHAIRS

yLuigi Bobbio, University of Turin yJoan Subirats, Institute of government and public policy, Universitat autònoma Barcelona

y We know that events related to politics are widely covered by media.

But what about policy? To what extent do citizens wishing to be informed about the measures that are under discussion, adopted or implemented, or about their outcomes have the possibility to learn about the issues at stake, the solutions under scrutiny and the controversial matters around them? Which policies are likely to be covered by the media or to be neglected? How are they framed? Do media help public deliberation on public policy? Does media logic tend to hinder public understanding of problems and solutions? We are then interested in the way policies are presented by the traditional media (newspapers and tv) and by the new ones through the Internet (where citizens can assume a more active role). The information provided to (and by) the citizens about problem definition, solutions formulation, implementation and evaluation is a key issue as it affects the quality of the “deliberative system” (according to Jane Mansbridge’s definition) and hence the quality of democracy. Papers should broadly try to answer to one of the following questions: i) How much room is devoted to public policy in the media, particularly compared to the room devoted to politics? ii) How media logic impacts on the communication of public policies: which policies are funnelled by the media (and which ones are not), through which frames? Does the traditional media logic tend to be altered when public policies are dealt with through the Internet? iii) To what extent do media contribute to public deliberation by presenting arguments and counterarguments? As the topic “media and policy” has been poorly investigated up to now, we would like to gather, in this panel, exploratory papers that begin to tackle this topic with different theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may present a policy case study and analyse its media coverage. Or they may consider the content of one or more medium (newspapers, TV programs, e-news, blogs and other Internet spaces etc.) and analyse how they deal with public policies. Comparative studies concerning more than one case, more the one medium or more than one country are obviously welcome.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Santa Agnese SA112) Peter Feindt, Wageningen University and Research Centre

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 05

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 05 y 254

MEDIA AND POLICY

Media coverage of policy debate. The interplay between mass media and online media in representing and influencing Dutch immigration policies Rianne Dekker, Erasmus University Rotterdam Peter Scholten, Erasmus University Rotterdam Going Beyond the Reduction Theory: the Role of the National Media in the Struggle Against Pupils’ Absenteeism in France Xavier Pons, University of East Paris Créteil Mediated deliberation and public policy: the Italian case. Stefania Ravazzi, University of Torino Gianfranco Pomatto, University of Turin Maggiolini Micol, University of Turin, Department of Culture, Politics and Society Attitudinal barriers to promoting work life balance as reflected in on-line and printed media in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland Katalin Bordos, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis - Central European University Agota Scharle, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis - Central European University Anna Adamecz, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis - Central European University Mass media, public opinion and policy (in)action: A meta-analysis of research examining newspaper coverage of Canadian childcare policy between 2007 and 2014 Brooke Richardson, Ryerson University Patrizia Albanese, Ryerson University

255 X

y Even though intersectionality is now recognised as an important resear-

ch and policy paradigm for interrogating power and working towards social justice, more attention is required to understand its transformative potential in the context of public policy and specifically policy making processes. The purpose of this panel is to explore the relationship between intersectionality and public policy, discuss the methodological challenges associated with intersectionality in public policy applications, and to highlight important developments within intersectionality-type policy analysis. For this panel, we invite proposals that explore innovative ways and means in which intersectionality is being deployed and interrogated across a variety of social, economic, health, and political issues at national and international levels. Proposals should address the following: the central research question, the approach to the study, and how the study contributes to existing literature. Papers employing diverse methods and methodologies, such as interpretive and qualitative methodologies, that analyse the challenges and potentialities of using intersectionaity as a means of policy analysis are strongly encouraged. We also seek papers that integrate theory, policy and practice. Potential topics include but are not limited to: • Education Policy • Employment and labor/labour policies • Environmental policy • Globalization/Globalisation • Health Policy • Land policy • Military, strategic and security policy • Policy across the lifecourse (child and youth development, elder care and support) • Poverty and poverty-reduction policies/strategies • Religion and social policy • Sexuality and social policy • Social safety net programs/programmes • Social welfare and social justice The panel is intended to facilitate ongoing dialogue for those seeking to bring an effective interpretive framework of intersectionality to policy analysis across a variety of sectors. Selected papers may be included in a special issue or edited volume. Please submit proposals to co-chairs: Olena Hnkivsky and Julia Jordan-Zachery.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

-

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA114) Olena Hankivsky, Simon Fraser University Michael Orsini, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

An Intersectionality based framework for tobacco control Jenny Douglas, The Open University Applying a Multidimensional Intersectionality Analysis: Perspectives of Sense of Place from Low-Income Seniors at the Intersections of Multiple Oppressions, Positionalities and Identities Mei Lan Fang, Gerontology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University Judith Sixsmith, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Northampton Ryan Woolrych, Heriot-Watt University Andrew Sixsmith, Gerontology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University Meeting the perspectives: vulnerability and intersectionality for better health policies Lara Maillet, ENAP Nassera Touati, ENAP Régis Hakin, Université de Montréal (UdeM) Intersectionality-based policy strategies to improve access to health care for Canadian sex workers Cecilia Benoit, University of Victoria Nadia Ouellet, Centre for Addictions Research of BC Mikael Jansson, Unviersity of Victoria Military, Strategic and Security Policy in the Arctic: An Analysis of North/South Perspectives Based on Ethnicity, Nationality, Remoteness and Gender Shelley Wright, Langara College

ySession 1 -

yOlena Hankivsky, Simon Fraser University yJulia Jordan-Zachery, Providence College

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 06 y 256

INTERSECTIONALITY BASED POLICY ANALYSIS: INNOVATING AND TRANSFORMING POLICY

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA114) Julia Jordan-Zachery, Providence College Michael Orsini, School of Political Studies

Righting Wrongs: Post-colonialisms and sexual rights in the developing world. Taushif Kara, Institute of Ismaili Studies Muslim women in the context of urban planning policy and design of public spaces: An intersectionality approach: case study of London Zahra Eftekhari Rad, Kingston University Provincial and Institutional Policy around the Inclusion of Marginalized Students in Ontario Postsecondary Education Karen Robson, York University An exploration of the application of an intersectionality paradigm in nursing education: Why don’t we act on what we know? Elizabeth Burgess-Pinto, MacEwan University Ann Little, MacEwan University Identity and Gender Work in the Canadian Bureaucracy Francesca Scala, Concordia University Stephanie Paterson, Concordia University Diversify the Faculty; Transform the U.S. Higher Education Institutions: Intersectional Policies to Promote Critical Praxis in Retention and Promotion of URM Faculty Ruth Enid Zambrana, University of Maryland

257 X

y Routinisation and reflexivity are essential ingredients in societal chan-

ge. Change requires a disruption of the mode of routine, in which action is geared at successively proceeding through a sequence of actions ‘without further thought.’ Reflexivity implies a “dissociative dynamic” (Knorr Cetina, 2001), which renders hitherto unchallenged routines an object of inquiry and possibly critique. Once reflexivity translates into new habits and practices, through processes of normalisation, the new situation may become routine. This panel will examine the relation between normalization, routine, dissociation, reflexivity and change, focusing on the continuum between routinization and reflection (Wilk, 2009). It will particularly explore three types of questions involved: 1. By what mechanisms does change play out in the relation between individual and community? Any seemingly individual action is not as individual as it might seem. Being a member of a community, an individual will choose his actions in view of tacit rules of appropriate conduct – either in line with these or deviating from them. In the case of dissociation and reflexivity, controversy is pending as deviant behaviour is bound to unsettle existing rules and conventions. Will the community ‘create’ the individual as a defiant case or will an account be developed that brings coherence and legitimacy to the case and allow it to change the identity of the community? 2. How are processes of routinisation and dissociation influenced or sparked by policies and technologies of governance? Routines, Boltanski (2011) argues, serve to maintain coordination without risking dispute or demanding authoritarian intervention and hence form the counterpart to (public) reflexivity and deviance. Of interest then are questions about the use of procedures such as participatory (technology) assessment and public debate – do state-led arrangements for public participation impede the emergence of dissociation and deviance, or do they rather spark reflexivity and possibly the formation of new, critical publics? If so, what which power dynamics are at play?

y 258

CHAIRS

yKathrin Braun, Institute for Political Science, University of Hanover

yAnne Loeber, University of Amsterdam

In this panel, we will examine the relations between normalisation and deviance, routine and reflexivity, and the processes of routinisation and dissociation involved, including those sparked by policies and publics, the governance of technologies and technologies of governance. We invite contributions that address either the three issues of routinisation and reflexivity and / or discuss these in relation to one another from an empirical and / or a conceptual perspective.

ySession 1 -

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 07

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 07

REFLEXIVITY, NORMALITY AND (DE)ROUTINIZATION

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G016)

When planners deal with change: Stories of Performativity in the politics of urban planning in two Scandinavian cities Enza Lissandrello, Aalborg University Knowing in action: science-society dialogue on eco-toxicological monitoring for integrated water-management Tamara Metze, Tilburg University ‘Emni’ and the (re-)construction of normalcy: a methodological exploration Anne Loeber, University of Amsterdam Revolution through routine? Non-invasive prenatal testing and the challenges for public participation, policy-making and public reflexivity Kathrin Braun, Institute for Political Science, University of Hanover

259 X

y Although constructivism has found its echo in the studies of interna-

tional relations, critical approaches to policies have remained relatively untouched by this kind of literature. Both approaches tend to use similar analytical schemes, ask similar question but have kept their research agenda rather separate so far. This panel therefore offers a forum to discuss both the way International Relation might profit from the perspective of critical policy studies and the attempts of some critical policy studies to enter in a dialogue with the domain of peacebuilding processes, development aid and the like. Indeed, this sort of a methodological dialogue has been already partly started in the analyses of EU policies.

CHAIR

yAnna Durnova, Department of Political Science, University of Vienna

ySession 1 -

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Santa Agnese SA325)

Popping the Peace Bubble: A Discourse of Healing Maggie Flack, San Diego City College The EU-India FTA between an Intellectual Property Rights and a pro-access discourse Karel Cada, Institute of Sociological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague Toward Constructivist Critical Theory of International Relations David Edwards, University of Texas at Austin The quest for normality in international relations Michal Kolmas, Charles University in Prague, Metropolitan University Deterritorialization and Europeanization: A Deleuzian Reading of EU’s Enlargement Marie-Eve Bélanger, University of Geneva/ETH Zurich

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 08

TOPIC 11 - PANEL 08

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS MEETING CRITICAL POLICY STUDIES

In particular, recent works in international relations have shown to what extent politics has to be thought of within novel power boundaries. Scholarly analyses of conflicts or of development aids agendas invite us to rethink the common notion of borders and state hierarchies. Critical approaches to policies have launched approaches to study these boundaries more carefully. For that reason we are interested in a more systematic dialogue between international relations and critical approaches. In this panel we want to see how combining both approaches or reflecting their respective views could provide an epistemological link that would open analyses toward novel areas of interest and it could refine the analysis of power dynamics. We invite scholars from both fields to submit their papers. We welcome theoretical investigations of reciprocal influences of both areas as well as encouraging researcher working on diverse case studies from international relations and development aid to submit their papers.

y 260

261 X

CHAIRS

University of Melbourne

THE AIM OF GOVERNANCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ACTORS INSTRUMENTATION AND MODES OF GOVERNANCE

y

Governance is the act of governing. It is what a governing body does and how rules are decided upon and implemented. Its purpose is to make policy and deliver services but also to steer society more generally, which signals that it is a more dynamic concept than ‘government’. In a social, economic and political environment marked by increasing complexity, meeting these governance challenges relies upon three interrelated factors: 1. Actors: The skills, creativity and expertise of actors involved in governance and policy processes and their capacity to work together in designing, co-producing, implementing and coordinating well targeted policy responses and service delivery programs; 2. Instruments: The [re]design and application of new, innovative and well-targeted governance tools, mechanisms and instruments; 3. Modes of governance: The [re]conceptualisation, [re]configuration, and [re]generation of formal and informal institutions, relationships and processes. Understanding the prerequisites for effective governance in the 21st century and designing and building the necessary capacities, institutions and processes to meet contemporary challenges requires us to work across these three broad levels: the micro level where our focus is primarily on the capacity of individual actors and/or teams; the meso level where our focus is primarily upon governance instrumentation; and the macro level where our focus is primarily upon architecture or modes of governance. This panel will bring together leading scholars working across each of these fields and will explore the contribution that actors, instrumentation and new modes of governance can make to better understanding and meeting the challenges of effective governance in the 21st century. Key areas for panel participants will include: Exploring how individual actors (politicians, political staff, public servants, citizens) understand and make sense of their roles; how they develop the skills and expertise necessary to perform them effectively; and how they interact with broader institutional and organisational contexts to shape the development of governance systems, public policy and the delivery of public services; - Developing a more detailed and nuanced picture of the policy design process and the crafting of responses to complex policy problems; examining new and emerging developments in policy and governance instrumentation and testing their application; - Examining the evolution, design, application and effectiveness of hierarchical, market-based, network-based and hybrid modes of governance; We invite papers that examine either one or several of these three aspects at the local, national or international level. We are particularly interested in receiving comparative papers that examine multiple policy sectors in a single jurisdiction, or single policy sectors, such as health, education, environmental or urban policy, across multiple jurisdictions.

yDamon Alexander, University of Melbourne yJenny Lewis, University of Melbourne yHelen Sullivan, Melbourne School of Government,

ySession 1 -

Emerging Governance Models: Challenges for Policy Improvement Emma Puerari, Politecnico di Milano How Does Institutional Complexity Improve Cooperation? Federal Continuities and Discontinuities in Brazil (1988-2012) Helder Ferreira do Vale, Hankuk University Shifting British Electricity Governance in the 21st Century: Paradigm Ambivalence and Technological Tension Seyed Mohamad Sadegh Emamian, Edinburgh University The AIM of Governance: A Framework for Analysis Helen Sullivan, Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne Damon Alexander, University of Melbourne Jenny Lewis, University of Melbourne

ySession 2 -

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G024)

New agents of change to the rescue? Exploring the building blocks of a pragmatic bottom-up approach to global environmental governance Kathrin Ludwig, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Marcel Kok, pbl Governing towards sustainability: the potential of different modes of governance Philipp Lange, University of Basel, Sustainability Research The changing governance of energy, 1990-2015: the end of the experiment? Jeremy Rayner, University of Saskatchewan Governing the health sector: Changes over time and across nations Jenny Lewis, University of Melbourne Comparative Environmental Policy Governance: sequencing decisions about policy steering over time. Anthony Zito, Newcastle University

ySession 3 -

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G024)

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 02 y 262

TOPIC 12 - GOVERNANCE, POLICY NETWORKS AND COALITIONS

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G024)

Remodelling the welfare state and its service providers - subjectivity, labour process and workplace resistance of public employment agents in Switzerland Myriam Gaitsch, Dept. of Political Science, University of Vienna Varieties of governance and regime hybridity evidence from environmental and ethnic policy in Russian regions Sabine Kropp, Freie Universität Berlin Enhancing the EU mode of governance in finance - ESMA as a role model? Marta Bozina Beros, Juraj Dobrila University of Pula (Faculty of Economics and Tourism) Ivana Bajakic, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb Traditional Knowledge of Nehinuw Governance. Real Carriere, Ryerson University

263 X

CHAIRS

y We welcome papers examining theoretical or methodological deve-

ySession 1

lopments of, or empirical applications of the ‘policy network’ concept. Policy networks are an important concept which can be used to understand the processes of decision-making and influence amongst public and private bodies. The term “policy networks” is widely used, but interpreted and applied in a range of theoretical, metaphorical and descriptive ways (Dowding 1995, Marsh and Rhodes 1992). Much of the discussion is rooted in theoretical descriptions of the policy process, and largely untested on empirical data. This has led some to doubt the potential usefulness of the “policy network” concept; i.e. its ability to develop casual arguments linking network characteristics (structure and positional analyses) with policy outcomes or processes, which work across a range of domains and contexts. The empirical data which does exist is largely narrative and case-based, and therefore not easily compared due to the variety of theoretical interpretations, compounding this problem. However, a relational approach to understanding policy networks has huge potential. The analysis of policy networks can be used to describe the membership of the policy community, identify the most salient actors involved in decision-making, influencing or evidence-use, and identify the conditions under which evidence can inform policy (Ingold 2011, Christopolous 2010, Fischer 2011, Drew 2011); all of which can help inform us about policy processes. Network analysis is still relatively untested in public policy, but previous theoretical work has proposed methods of using reputational, decision-making and positional analyses to understand the role of networks and elites in policy (Knoke 1993). This panel will draw together theoretical and methodologically rigorous papers on policy networks. We aim to stimulate a discussion about the utility and role of the network concept in policy research, to showcase innovative applications of network methods, and to promote discussion on the development of the field.

y 264

DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

Wednesday, July 2nd 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA117) Frédéric Varone, University of Geneva

Opportunities and Challenges of Using Social Network Analysis in Policy Research: Complex Governance and Policy Research in the North American Great Lakes Region Carolyn Johns, Ryerson University Policy networks and Policy Change: the case of Street Play in Bristol (United Kingdom) Veronica Vinas, Carlos III University of Madrid Angie Page, University of Bristol Elizabeth Pike, University of Chichester Louise Hampton, University of Bristol Governance and policy networks and its analysis Klaus Frey, Universidade Federal do ABC Implementation Processes in Urban Development Politics: A Comparative Network Analysis of Large-Scale Waterfront Redevelopments Bettina Lelong, ILS Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development Viability and Variation of the Parentela Policy Network: The Parentela 2.0 Mihail Petkov, University of Edinburgh

ySession 2 -

yKathryn Oliver, University College London yMichele Acuto, STEaPP, University College London yKarin Ingold, University of Bern

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 03

NETWORKS AND NETWORK ANALYSIS IN POLICY

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 -10.30 (Santa Agnese SA117) Manuel Fischer, Eawag

Policy networks: what are they and what are they good for? Kathryn Oliver, University College London Michele Acuto, STEaPP, University College London Theorizing on risk-averse behavior of public sector organizations in innovation networks Vidar Stevens, University of Antwerp Koen Verhoest, public administration & management group, dep. of Politics, University of Antwerp Individuals in policy processes: studying the multipositionality and interconnectedness of policy elites Lisa Marx, University of Geneva Membership Nomination and Knowledge Co-Production in an Epistemic Community: A Network Analysis of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Philip Leifeld, University of Konstanz Dana R Fisher, University of Maryland Networks, policy beliefs and advocacy coalitions in international climate change politics 2005-2014 Marlene Kammerer, University Zürich

265 X

y If governance is defined as “the traditions and institutions by which

authority in a country is exercised for the common good” (Kauffmann, 2005), if it pertains to the representativeness, the accountability (electoral, inter-institutional), the stability, the effectiveness, the quality and the procedural appropriateness in the use of such authority by those who are given a mandate to use it, then governance is a multidimensional entity and systems of governance can be mapped depending on how well or how poorly they perform on each of these dimensions of governance. The purpose of the present panel is twofold. First, the panel seeks to gather and present some evidence as to whether there is a distinct mode of governance in Asia that is clearly distinguished and distinguishable from modes of governance in other regions (Africa, Europe and the Americas). Second, in addition to paying attention to differences between regions, the panel seeks to investigate whether there are differences in terms of governance within the Asian region, that is the panel seeks to gather and present evidence of whether, depending on how individual countries perform in terms of representativeness, responsiveness, and responsibility, it is possible to identify different modes of governance in Asia. In doing so, the panels aims to contribute to furthering the scholarly understanding of governance with or without adjectives. By recognising the multidimensional character of governance, by showing that the various dimensions of governance may vary independently of one another, and by mapping governance accordingly, how plural and diversified are the modes of governance in countries where governance is neither perfect nor failed.

y 266

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA325) M Ramesh, LKY School of Public Policy Riccardo Pelizzo, Graduate School of Public Policy, Nazarbayev University

Defining ‘Asia Capabilities’ for governance and policy in the Asian Century Sara Bice, The University of Melbourne Helen Sullivan, Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne Rule of Law or Corporate State: Bureaucratic Interests in China’s Lawmaking Process Chien-min Chao, The Graduate Institute of Sun Yat-sen Thoughts and Mainland China Studies, the Chinese Culture University Chun-Chih Chang, Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica Place-based competition and complex social development projects Bingqin Li, ANU

ySession 2

-

yEduardo Araral, LKY School of Public Policy

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 04

MODES OF GOVERNANCE: ASIA IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 -10.30 (Santa Agnese SA325) Tanya Heikkila, University of Colorado Denver Eduardo Araral, Graduate School of Public Policy, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan

Growth with Corruption in Asia: A Perspective Based upon the Korean Case under the Developmental Regime Yumi Horikane, Meiji University The Governance of Service Delivery in Social Investment Policies: Childcare Services in Korea Jooha Lee, Dongguk University Moo-Kwon Chung, Yonsei University Health Care Governance: The Missing Links in India M Ramesh, LKY School of Public Policy

267 X

CHAIR

y The birth of the EMU featured an almost unprecedented transfer of

ySession 1

sovereignty from the European member states to a newly created European institution. Ever since, monetary policy has been the sole responsibility of the ECB at least for the countries in the Eurozone. Budgetary policy though still belongs to the domain of the European member states. However, they are not completely free in this respect, as they are bound by the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). Sound public finances were considered to be a necessary corollary of monetary integration. The sovereign debt crisis, notably the situation in Greece, equipped the European Union with a number of new instruments under the umbrella of the so-called European semester. The introduction of the European semester that begins with the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) changed above all the timetable for submission of the convergence and stability reports. It enables, inter alia, the Commission to issue country-specific recommendations regarding next year’s budget of the member states. In addition, a procedure has been launched to reduce Macro-Economic Imbalances (MIP), very much alike the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP). The aim of this panel is to assess the new European requirements and to identify ‘best practice’ concerning budget institutions and procedures in the European Commission in the context of the European semester. It takes the response of the European Union to the sovereign debt crisis as a point of departure. Typical questions include: What are the consequences of the new timetable for the submission of the convergence and stability reports? What is the impact of the country-specific recommendations of the Commission under the European semester? What is the effectiveness of the six-pack and two-pack? What the state of the transposition of the Council Directive on the requirements for Medium-Term Budgetary Frameworks (MTBF) of the European member states? What numerical rules are in place and how do they work? What is the role of independent fiscal institutions? Are the member states inside the Eurozone performing better than outsiders? The panel is geared to the publication of a special issue on European economic governance of one of the leading international journals on public policy or governance.

-

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Santa Agnese SA223)

Reinforcing Europe’s failed fiscal regulatory state Scott Greer, University of Michigan Holly Jarman, University of Michigan Supranational and inter-institutional governance for financial stability Tatjana Jovanic, University of Belgrade Faculty of Law European Economic Governance under centrifugal federalism: Implementing ESA standards in Belgium Damien Piron, University of Liège Policy Evaluation in a Differentiated Polity Gilles Pittoors, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

ySession 2 -

yFrans K.M. Van Nispen, Erasmus University of Rotterdam

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 05

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 05 y 268

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 -18.45 (Santa Agnese SA223)

Troika surveillance and the European Semester – a qualitative comparison Max Lüggert, Bonn University The IMF as Judge and Shaper of the Policy – The Assessment of Austerity Programs during the European Debt Crisis Markus Hinterleitner, Center of Competence for Public Management, University of Bern Fritz Sager, University of Bern Eva Thomann, University of Bern Designing an effective framework for structural adjustment programs in euro area: An Institutionalist perspective Konstantinos Hazakis, Democritus University of Thrace

269 X

CHAIRS

y Presented as a promising way to reform public and administration pro-

ySession 1

cesses , public participation practices remain relatively understudied in the public policy field. Also, research in this field has only established a limited dialogue with other contributions coming from political theory, comparative politics, or political behaviour. One way of explaining the lack of public policy studies of public participation comes from the fact that a lot of participatory processes are typically one-off experiments that occur over a short time period. But after decades of public participation practices, there are more and more of them that last and repeat over time. The organizers of this panel would like to take this opportunity to better understand how public participation influences the ‘world’ of the public decision-making process. There is a lot of scepticism about the real effect of public participation, but in the meantime, there are a few studies that have tried to measure the influence. We are here interested in two questions. First, how do public authorities receive and manage citizens’ opinions? This question refers to the potential effects of participatory arrangements on the final public policies (or policy content). Second, how does public participation change the context of the public decision-making process? The issues of diffusion and learning are central in this question. Who are the actors responsible for the growing use of the participatory arrangements? What mechanisms do they use? This panel will also welcome papers with methodological issues regarding measurement and evaluation of the two topics (impact and diffusion).

DISCUSSANT -

-

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 270

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G024) Ank Michels, Universiteit Utrecht

The more participated, the better? Effects of participation on policy outputs Fabiola Mota, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid / Carol Galais, Université de Montréal Beyond the Participatory Process: Consequences in the Interaction between Civil Society and Local Authorities Patricia Garcia Espín, Spanish National Research Council / Jose Luis Fernández Martínez, IESA-CSIC Manuel Jiménez Sánchez, Universidad Pablo de Olavide / Laurence Bherer, Université de Montréal Participation for effective environmental governance? A comparative study of European water policy implementation in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom Elisa Kochskämper, Leuphana University Lüneburg / Jens Newig, Leuphana University Lüneburg Edward Challies, Leuphana University Lüneburg / Nicolas Jager, Leuphana University Lüneburg Participatory engineering and its remedies for the crisis of representative democracy. Much ado about nothing? Stefania Profeti, University of Bologna - department of Political and Social Sciences Cecilia Biancalana, Università degli studi di Torino

ySession 3 -

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G024) Rodolfo Lewanski, Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e Sociali, University of Bologna

Does participation benefit the environment? Insights from a meta analysis of 250 cases of public environmental decision-making Nicolas Jager, Leuphana University Lüneburg / Jens Newig, Leuphana University Lüneburg, / Edward Challies, Leuphana University Lüneburg / Elisa Kochskämper, Leuphana University Lüneburg, When expertise matters in participatory governance: how technical knowledge is incorporated in participatory processes Carlos Rico Motos, Universidad Pablo de Olavide / Graham Smith, University of Westminster Laurence Bherer, Université de Montréal / Joan Font, Institute of Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC) The impact of citizen participation on public policies. Evidence from two local mini-publics in the Netherlands Ank Michels, Universiteit Utrecht / Harmen Binnema, Utrecht University School of Governance From Participatory Policy Proposals to Local Policies: Explaining Diverse Trajectories Joan Font, Institute of Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC) / Graham Smith, University of Westminster Pau Alarcon, IESA-CSIC / Carol Galais, Université de Montréal

ySession 2 -

yLaurence Bherer, Université de Montréal yJoan Font, Institute of Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC)

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 06

PUBLIC POLICY AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G024) Francis Garon, Glendon College, York University

Participatory governance and its effectiveness: challenges, opportunities and difficulties Francesco Badia, University of Ferrara Comparing the role of Autonomous organization dedicated to public participation in the diffusion of participatory processes Laurence Bherer, Université de Montréal / Mario Gauthier, Université du Québec en Outaouais Louis Simard, University of Ottawa The Diffusion of Participatory Governance Innovations: A Panel Data Analysis of the Adoption and Survival of Participatory Budgeting in Brazil Paolo Spada, University of British Columbia

271 X

y The problem of inequality in Latin America is closely linked to habitat

and access to sustainable and livable urban spaces. Traditionally vulnerable communities are relocated by national and local authorities, within the Latin American capitals, or because refugees are migrants from rural areas in conflict. The Latin American urban habitat has gained interest and the growing process of urbanization in the region, makes it subject to intervention by the national, regional and local governments and multilateral organisations that attempt to mitigate the complex social problems generated by the inequality and the concentration of land and wealth. The dwindling social housing policies related to welfare programs provide some minimum units of housing, linked more to market interests than the needs, rights and interests of citizens who are living communities. The proposed panel welcomes scholars interested in exploring and proposing local governance mechanisms that promote joint construction of habitat solutions between authorities and citizens, in which living spaces meet the imaginary of the communities involved, favour the basics local governance and lead to the implementation of effective, legitimate and equitable decisions on urban habitat. Paper proposals will investigate the concepts of collaborative governance, policy networks, policy communities, urban environment, popular habitat and citizen self-management.

y 272

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS

-

-

-

yJuan-Antonio Zornoza, National University of Colombia yAlberto Giraldo, Universidad Nacional de Colombia yNorman Simón Rodríguez, National University of Colombia

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G112) Renata Santos, Universidade de Brasília Mariusz Sienkiewicz, Marie Curie Skłodowska University

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 07

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 07

GOVERNANCE AND TERRITORY: LAND USE POLICIES AND COMMUNITY NETWORKS IN LATIN AMERICA

The Brazilian National Policy for Regional Development and the RIDE-DF Management opposite the Governance of Metropolitan Area of Brasilia Renata Santos, Universidade de Brasília Luiz Fernando Macedo Bessa, University of Brasilia The Influence of Street-Level Bureaucrats in the Process of Implementation of Housing Policy of the State of Minas Gerais – Brazil Suely de Fátima Ramos Silveira, Universidade Federal de Viçosa Lucas Pazolini Dias Rodrigues, Universidade Federal de Viçosa Alexandre Matos Drumond, CEFET/RJ The Urban reconfiguration of Medellin City due to the Post-Conflict Andrés Felipe López Ochoa, National Univetsity of Colombia based Medellín David Mauricio Lalinde Duque, Universidad de Antioquia, based in Medellin Convergence in Social expenditures in Latin America 1990-2010: an error correction model Fernando Martin Mayoral, FLACSO Ecuador Local democracy and decision making in social, environmental and cultural policy of 21st century Juan-Antonio Zornoza, National University of Colombia Forms and determinants of public participation in the management process of local development in Poland Mariusz Sienkiewicz, Marie Curie Skłodowska University

273 X

CHAIRS

y We invite scholar to submit papers that outline new research pa-

ySession 1

thways to study relational structures of climate change policy-making, (e.g. papers that investigate the poly-centric nature of a specific policy subsystem, the patterns of particular discourse, and/or the structures of advocacy coalitions within such a policy network). States, regions, cities, citizen groups and corporations around the globe are under pressure to respond to evidence that climatic conditions are changing. There is no one centre of decision making or one shared understanding about the cause and consequences of the observed change but several, which constantly evolve across time and space. Climate policy and governance is a phenomenon that has attracted much attention in recent years across various social science traditions. In this context researchers started to investigate actor constellations, discourse and advocacy coalitions within a specific policy network as well as its fluent poly-centric nature to explain changes in local, domestic or international responses to climate change.

DISCUSSANT -

-

yJeffrey Broadbent University of Minnesota yAntje Witting, University of Konstanz

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G112) Volker Schneider, University of Konstanz

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 08

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 08

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY NETWORKS

Global Field of Climate Change Discourse: Dimensions of Difference Jeffrey Broadbent, University of Minnesota John Sonnett, University of Mississippi Re-visiting the Ostroms: Elements of a theory of polycentric global climate governance Marcel Dorsch, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) Berlin Christian Flachsland, Mercator Research Intitute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks in Germany and the UK Volker Schneider, University of Konstanz Clare Saunders, University of Exeter Societal Change and Climate Change Felix Ekardt, Research Unit Sustainability and Climate Policy

Most scholars rely on formal institutional arrangements and do not give enough consideration to informal relational patters shaping perceptions in decision situations and resources exchange in such situations. Other studies adopt a micro-level focus and tend to describe only a narrow perspective of utility oriented decision-making and fail to take into consideration the multiple characteristics of political interaction. The proposed panel will introduce and critically reflect on recent developments in the field to construct and validate cumulative knowledge of the evolution of specific climate change policy networks and relational attributes of coalitions, actor constellations, and discourse configurations that are contained therein.

y 274

275 X

y Many metropolises like New York City make use of multi-scalar insti-

tutional networks for regional policy planning and implementation, in this case governing 20 million inhabitants, 4 states, dozens of regional financial entities,, hundreds of counties, school districts, utility districts – all intersecting with the federal government, supranational and transnational policy constellations. These institutional policymaking ensembles accommodate multi-layered and multi-scalar coordinated reflexive network arrangements, and the accompanying transversal negotiations of co-regulation that make for the interconnectedness sustaining global value chains, global supply chains, global distribution chains, and global ecology. Globalization results in more than global capitalism, it is the world-wide realization of the cognitive demands of functional differentiation. This panel studies the emerging generalized patterns of coordinating transnational policy regimes (TPRs). The panel explores whether such multi-layered and multi-scalared TPRs with more looped and iterative (less linear) path dependency establish a referent of network purpose, benchmarking and triggering threshold sanctions to help rein in the excesses of functional differentiation gone amok: e.g. in innovation policy, forest restoration, central bankers’ financial regulation, biofuels, disposal of contaminants, water governance, fisheries, emission trading schemes. These multi-layered and multi-scalar TPNs manifest an ontology based on needs, inter-connections among them, and the networks that they form. A growing literature has tried to provide a theoretical underpinning of the interdependencies between the subnational, the national, the intergovernmental, the supranational and TPRs.beyond ad hoc exceptional practices. The panel’s focus is on the nodes and inter- connections connexions that transverse a rhizomic differentiation into nested and entangled scales. Specifically, our focus on multi-scalarity centers on the problematic of “getting the scale right”. In this, the panel is characterized by the Territory, Place, Scale, Network (TPSN) Framework of Jessop, Brenner and Jones (2008) with its emphasis on space rather than place, as well as scale rather than level in studying networks of networks.

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Santa Agnese SA117) Philip G Cerny, University of Manchester

“The Network-Connected Contract as the Critical Complementary Form of Transnational Reglementation” Richard R Weiner, Rhode Island College Studying Policy Change Within The Global Governance of Natural Resources: The Case of Forest Yves Montouroy, IEP Bordeaux Human Rights, Interculturality, and the Idea of a Transnational Public Sphere Andrew Buchwalter, University of North Florida Re-Structuring Anarchy: Complex Interdependence & the Antinomies of Globalization Philip G Cerny, University of Manchester A Multiscalar and Multilevel Approach to National Energy Policies and Energy Security in the Context of Climate Change and Global Environmental Risks Paolo Davide Farah, West Virginia University

ySession 2 -

yRichard R Weiner, Rhode Island College

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 09

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 09 y 276

MULTI-SCALARITY AND TRANSNATIONAL POLICY-MAKING

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA117) Jan Seifert, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA)

How far are we from integrated climate system governance? An institutional and right-based perspective on the climate crisis regulation Johann Dupuis, Idheap / University of Lausanne Cities beyond bohemian and fordist ideals: Multi-scalar measurements of urban flows Rolf Hugoson, CERUM Umeå University Occupation and sanctions as norms of post-sovereignty Sayres Rudy, Self-employed Persons of African-descent create inclusive financial services in the Americas Caroline Hossein, York University In the shadows of nodal point cities? Locational policies in medium sized European cities David Kaufmann, University of Bern Tobias Arnold, University of Berne/Interface Policy studies Research Consulting

277 X

CHAIRS

yMaria Tullia Galanti, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano

yMarco Di Giulio, Department of Political

and Social Sciences, Università degli Studi di Bologna

y In the last three decades, the rise of regulation-oriented approaches

to markets diverted the attention of most scholars from themes such as State intervention in the economy and industrial policy. Nonetheless, even if not directly addressed, this area of investigation remains crucial in order to understand the political economies of complex policy sectors such as those regarding network industries, utilities, automotive, aerospace, defence industry and so forth. Moreover, the combination of the financial crisis and the political and coalitional dynamics in the context of Multi Level Governance may have activated a variety of new actors and opportunities in these fields, thus reframing industrial policy itself in different ways. In order to define frames, ideas, actors and instruments of industrial policy, potential contributors to the panel should address these questions:

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G121) Mathias Finger, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne and Florence School of Regulation EUI

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 10

TOPIC 12 - PANEL 10

RE-FRAMING INDUSTRIAL POLICY IN TIME OF CRISIS

Industrial policy formulation and implementation: A global south perspective Kazi Haque, ActionAid Bangladesh Industrial policy as national security policy. Government’s strategies to protect “vital” industries in Europe Francesco Niccolo Moro, University of Milan-Bicocca Stefano Mele, Italian Institute of Strategic Studies ‘Niccolò Machiavelli’ The multi-level dimension of industrial policies. Forging regional utilities champions in Italy (1999-2014) Marco Di Giulio, Department of Political and Social Sciences - University of Bologna Maria Tullia Galanti, Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan A New Direction for Industrial Policy in South Korea After 2008 Sung Gul Hong, Kookmin University

How have States reacted to institutional and environmental changes in order to keep national players competitive? What have been the most prominent sectors of State intervention and what justifications emerged for them? How have businesses coped with markets’ financialization and how has this altered the relations between corporate actors, stakeholders and regulators? How have business strategies influenced the choice and calibration of regulatory policy tools in specific sectors? Is there any role for Regional and Urban governments in industrial policy? The panel aims to collect papers from scholars with different social science backgrounds and methodological approaches. Particular attention will be given to papers explicitly addressing the impact of the recent financial crisis on industrial policy.

y 278

279 X

yJennifer Curtin, University of Auckland yMelissa Haussman, Carleton University

FEMINIST INSTITUTIONALISM AND GENDER EQUALITY POLICY

y This panel is co-sponsored by IPSA RC 19 (Gender, Politics and Poli-

cy), in conjunction with FIIN (Feminism and Institutionalism International Network). Feminist scholars have long given considerable attention to the gendered nature and interconnectedness of social and political institutions, and how such institutions induce gendered outcomes in public policy (Gatens and Mackinnon 1998; Lovenduski, 1998). Although there is no single variant or definition of feminist institutionalism this does not preclude feminist institutionalist analyses of policy change. Rather, a feminist institutionalist project is one that seeks to map the gendered dimensions of visible formal rules and the often hidden informal institutional practices (Mackay, 2011). To date, much of the new scholarship that has drawn on this conceptual framework has focused on political institutional change. Increasingly, however, variants of FI are being utilised to explain policy stasis and change (Beyeler and Annesley 2011; Grace, 2011; Hašková and Saxonberg, 2011). This panel calls for papers that offer new insights on the intersection of institutional design, the formal and informal rules associated with policy making, and feminist policy thought and practice. Papers for this panel should address how feminist engagement with institutionalism (and its varieties, including feminist institutionalism) has facilitated new theoretical and empirical understandings of policy processes and outcomes, and the extent to which these are gendered in their effects. Papers that offer theoretically-informed case studies from new and established democracies, canvassing the policy work of government, and non-government agencies as well as feminist policy entrepreneurs, and employing methodologically eclectic approaches are welcomed.

y 280

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

Managing gender: external funding and women based NGOs in Eastern Europe Andrada Nimu, National School of Political Science and Public Administration Faculty of Political Science In the Belly of the Beast: Of Structural Problems and Straitjackets the South African Commission for Gender Equality Amanda Gouws, University of Stellenbosch How gendered processes of institutional formation shape policy outcomes: Francesca Gains, University of Manchester Vivien Lowndes, University of Nottingham Toward a Feminist Measure of Gender Equality: Lessons from the Gender Equality Policy in Practice Project Isabelle Engeli, University of Ottawa Amy Mazur, Washington State University Joni Lovenduski, Birkbeck College Rosie Campbell, Birkbeck University of London

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Via Lanzone VL1-02) Melissa Haussman, Carleton University Jennifer Curtin, University of Auckland

TOPIC 13 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 13 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 13 - GENDER AND PUBLIC POLICY

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Lanzone VL1-02) Jennifer Curtin, University of Auckland

Politics of childcare policy in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland Adrienn Győry, Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis Jana Valkova, Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies Comparing gender equality policy in Taiwan and Japan: Impact on outcomes Joyce Gelb, CUNY NY Gender Regime in Ukraine: Discursive and Institutional Changes in Family Policies Oleksandra Tarkhanova, University of Bielefeld Gender justice and policies of compensation for clerical sexual abuse in Australia and the Republic of Ireland Kate Gleeson, Macquarie Law School

281 X

y The text of the call for papers concerned women’s reproductive rights

at national levels, in federal and unitary systems and in multi-level contexts (including the European Court of Human Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights). This proposed roundtable will be relevant to many different aspects of public policy-formulation, comparative public policy, implementation, gender and public policy. It concerns the ways in which statutory and constitutional decisions on many different aspects of women’s reproductive rights are reached, and will include different political systems in North America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. Various aspects of women’s reproductive rights will be included, such as health insurance (public, private and social insurance); contraception, IVF, the morning-after pill and abortion (surgical and medical).

CHAIR

yKieke Okma, Catholic University Leuven, McGill University Montreal

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G121) Melissa Haussman, Carleton University Jennifer Curtin, University of Auckland

TOPIC 13 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 13 - PANEL 04 y 282

COMPARATIVE CONSIDERATIONS ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Harmonizing European ART governance: analysing reproductive rights at the intersection of social integration, gender equity and health care policies Shelley Grant, Queen Mary University of London Which Ideas, Whose Norms? Comparing the Relative Influence of IOs on Paid Maternity/Parental Leave Policies in Liberal Welfare States Linda White, University of Toronto What shapes abortion law? A global perspective Achim Hildebrandt, Institute for the Social Sciences, University of Stuttgart Feminist and Historical Institutionalism Meet the Affordable Care Act and its Limitations Melissa Haussman, Carleton University

283 X

CHAIR

yRajeev Venugopal, Saint Thomas University, University of New Brunswick

CONFLICT IN FEDERAL SYSTEMS IN PARA-DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

y The study of international public policy interests through the lens of

federalism theory requires cognizance of the “level of participation” question. When central governments pursue their extra-territorial interests, it is incumbent upon them to carefully consider whether constitutionally-assigned areas of jurisdiction between themselves and their constituent regional orders of government are implicated. In some cases, national constitutions assign concurrent jurisdiction over policy issues to the central and regional governments, or assign sole areas of jurisdiction, in a manner that engenders conflict between these orders of government when implementation is attempted. When regional governments attempt to pursue such interests on the international stage, the sub-discipline of “para-diplomacy” (see Michelmann and Soldatos, Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units, 1991” is particularly relevant. The intra/ultra vires conundrum is exemplified by the Labour Conventions Case, 1937, in which the Government of Canada signed an international agreement in an area of provincial competence. After consideration by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Lord Atkin stated, “While the ship of state now sails on larger ventures and into foreign waters she still retains the watertight compartments which are an essential part of her original structure.” His message was simple- the days in which the federal government could obligate the provinces in areas of their own jurisdiction through the adoption of foreign treaties were over. Despite Lord Atkins’ ruling however, “jurisdiction creep” (i.e., Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol despite constitutionally-established and concurrent provincial jurisdiction) and other agenda-setting disconnects continue to have fractious effects. By examining this important yet underexplored area of public policy, the goal of this panel is to understand how various federal jurisdictions around the world have dealt with such “who does what outside the country” questions. The proposed panel seeks high quality submissions examining such questions and issues from a conceptual (i.e. multi-level/ polycentric governance model…) or regional case study perspective.

ySession 1 -

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G135)

Spoiling for a fight?: Addressing sites of jurisdictional contestation between the Government of Canada and indigenous communities Leah Sarson, Queen’s University Implementation of Treaties In Nigeria: Constitutional Provisions, Federalism Imperative and the Subsidiarity Principle Omoregie Edoba, University of Benin Para-diplomacy and its Constraints in a Quasi-Federal System A Case Study of Hong Kong SAR and its Implications to Chinese Foreign Policy Chan Wai Shun, Lancaster University

TOPIC 14 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 14 - PANEL 01 y 284

TOPIC 14 - LOCAL AND MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE

285 X

y Multi-level governance has become a popular tool for making sense of

a variety of political phenomena in the European Union (Hooghe and Marks 2001, Peters and Pierre 2004) and to a lesser extent, in North America (Stein and Turkewitsch 2010, Papillon 2012, Alcantara and Nelles 2014, Rodon 2014). Part of the reason why this concept has become so popular is because it neatly captures a new range of developments involving a multitude of actors from different levels, interacting in new ways to produce political decisions and policy outcomes. Indeed, it is for these reasons that scholars have begun to turn to multi-level governance as a means of analyzing new developments in the Arctic region. This part of the world has become a hotbed of experiments in multi-level governance processes and institutions, ranging from the emergence of new international (e.g. Arctic Council) and regional institutions (e.g. Barents Euro Arctic Council in Northern Europe), and new actors rooted in national, subnational, Aboriginal (e.g. Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, North Slope Borough, Russian Okrugs), and civil society levels (e.g environmental and business groups). We are looking for papers focusing on the role of these new institutions, actors, and modes of governance in two increasingly important and relevant policy areas in the Arctic: security (encompassing a wide range of areas ranging from hard security to human security) and natural resource development. We will however consider other relevant policies areas More specifically we wish to address the following questions:

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

yThierry Rodon, Université Laval yCecile Pelaudeix, Aarhus University, Arctic Research Center yChristopher Alcantara, Wilfrid Laurier University

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G121) Nina Belyaeva, Higher School of Economics

TOPIC 14 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 14 - PANEL 02

SECURITY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES: MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE IN THE ARCTIC REGION

Resource development and Land Claims Settlement in the Canadian Arctic: Multilevel Governance or plain Balkanization of Decision Making? Thierry Rodon, Université Laval Offshore hydrocarbon activities in the Arctic ocean and multilevel governance: analysis of the relevance of an analytical concept Cecile Pelaudeix, Aarhus University, Arctic Research Center Multilevel Governance in Theory and in Practice: The Case of Nunatsiavut Gary Wilson, University of Northern British Columbia Multi-Level Governance In The Arctic Shipping Daria Gritsenko, Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki Mapping and Assessing Multilevel Governance in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Canada Christopher Alcantara, Wilfrid Laurier University

What is the descriptive and explanatory capacity of multilevel governance analysis in the Arctic context? What is the involvement and interaction of different actors from the local to the regional level? Does this context of multilevel governance in the Arctic produce coherent and/or relevant policies?

y 286

287 X

yGraham Wilson, Boston University

BUSINESS POLICY

y We invite papers that address the extent, causes and consequences of

policies aimed at changing business. These policies can be aimed at specific aspects of corporate behaviour such as potential pollution or structural aspects of business with important policy consequences such as the pressures to give stockholders short-term rewards rather than incentivizing long-term investment. We particularly seek papers that explore the extent and efficacy of attempts by NGOs to change corporate behaviour without seeking new laws or regulations but by acting directly on corporations utilizing publicity, social media activity and threats of boycotts. We invite papers using any methodology that address policy changes in a single country or comparatively so long as there are clear analytical conclusions. This panel explores how, when and why policies are developed that change business. Particularly since the Global Financial Crisis, reformers have sought to change business. Some of these efforts have focused on changing specific behaviours by corporations such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Other reforms have attempted to change the structure of businesses with the hope of producing longer term thinking on strategies such as investment or greater engagement with stakeholders in the community as well as in companies themselves. The various attempts to change the financial sector such as limitations on bonuses or trading on their own account by major banks provide important examples. The attempts by NGOs to engage and change corporations directly through meetings, boycotts and adverse publicity rather than through seeking new laws or regulations have brought a new dimension to business policy that political scientists have only recently started to analyse. In response, corporations have entered into new policy structures embodying self-regulation, third party certification and engagement with stakeholders that constitute new forms of governance. The panel explores the causes, extent and consequences of innovations n these different types of policy in changing business.

y 288

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

-

Thursday, July 02nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G112) Graham Wilson, Boston University Matthew Maguire, Boston University

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 15 - POLITICS, POLICY AND BUSINESS

Money-games as an analytical framework for understanding the emergence of Crypto-Coins Moritz Hütten, Goethe University Frankfurt a.M. Economic security and the Polish accession to the euro zone from the point of view of Polish interests Jarosław Filip Czub, Institute of European Studies, University of Warsaw Faculty of Journalism and Political Science, University of Warsaw Kicking the Habit: Business Responses to the Singapore Government’s Efforts to Reduce the Foreign Worker Dependency Peter Waring, Murdoch University Christopher Vas, Murdoch University Azad Singh Bali, Murdoch University Peter McKiernan, University of Strathclyde Market discipline induced by depositors: Assessment of banking policy in Pakistan Syeda Hadika Jamshaid , National Research University Higher School of Economics

289 X

y

We welcome paper proposals examining contemporary developments (theoretical or empirical) in international tax governance, voluntary corporate regulation and evolution and influence of public interest groups in the fields of tax and financial regulation. We envisage that two sessions associated with this panel will be devoted to the research project described above, but hope to host additional sessions exploring recent developments in private/voluntary regulation more generally. Five years after the ‘Great Recession’ governments the world over are struggling to address large, and in many cases unsustainable, levels of public debt. Budget consolidation in the context of the slow economic growth and recovery often involves difficult political choices, such as cutting long-stablished and popular social programs or increasing domestic taxes. Given this context, the growing numbers of high profile corporate tax avoidance cases since 2012 have precipitated strong political responses and a number of reform proposals. Amid growing pessimism about the prospects of achieving a formal intergovernmental agreement (such as the OECD’s BEPS project) capable of addressing corporate tax planning strategies (Palan and Wigan 2014), there is growing interest in innovative private and hybrid governance regimes designed to reduce corporate tax planning and influence corporate tax strategies and compliance behaviour. The proposed panel will be used to present papers which will collectively provide the first systematic analysis of voluntary governance strategies in the international and corporate tax arena. Systems of voluntary governance which encourage private companies to meet or exceed private regulatory standards have become well established in relation to environmental regulation (Vogel, 2008) and have been characterised ‘as perhaps the most common type of innovative transnational governance institution’ in recent years (Hale and Held 2011, 211). However, with the exception of, for instance, the extractive industries, voluntary governance regimes have not been a prominent feature of international tax governance. In response to recent corporate tax scandals, tax justice NGOs have actively been drawing consumers’ attention to corporate tax planning practices with a view to exerting market pressure on companies to ‘pay their fair share of taxes’ and improve their reputation both in the market and in the public sphere. In 2013 this campaign assumed a tangible form with the launch of the Tax Mark initiative, a private certification scheme designed ‘to offer businesses that know they are good taxpayers the opportunity to proudly display this to their customers’. This research project was initiated at the 2014 IPSA World Congress. The proposed panel (consisting of 3 sessions) will allow existing members of the research team to present preliminary findings and will provide an opportunity for additional scholars with an interest in international taxation and voluntary corporate governance regimes to participate in the research project.

CHAIR

ySession 1 -

-

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Via Nirone NI010)

The Voluntary-Mandatory Governance Divide: Fair Taxation and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative James Van Alstine, University of Leeds The practice of private governance: precedents from other policy arenas Fred Gale, University of Tasmania Hannah Murphy-Gregory, University of Tasmania Theoretical foundations: Private governance, reputation and ‘activist certification/regulation’ Tony Porter, McMaster University Karsten Ronit, Department of Political Science The challenge of corporate tax governance and the promise of private regulation Richard Eccleston, University of Tasmania Private Regulatory Approaches and International Tax Policy Aynsley Kellow, University of Tasmania

ySession 2 -

yRichard Eccleston, University of Tasmania

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 03 y 290

PAYING A FAIR SHARE? ACTIVISM, BUSINESS AND TAX JUSTICE’

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Nirone NI010)

Collision or mutual adaptation? Professionals and the emerging issue of corporate tax governance in the international tax regime. Lyne Latulippe, University of Sherbrooke Tax Justice as Social License: The Fair Tax Mark Allison Christians, McGill University Professions in Global Tax Battles: Methodology Conflict and the Fair Tax Mark Duncan Wigan, Copenhagen Business School Empirical Developments in Voluntary Global Corporate Taxation Initiatives Ainsley Elbra, University of Sydney Corporations’ Strategies and Perspectives on a Global Taxation Regime John Mikler, The University of Sydney Ainsley Elbra, University of Sydney

291 X

CHAIRS

yNirvia Ravena de Sousa, Center for Advanced Studies of the Amazon -NAEA-UFPa and Amazonia University Brazil

yFlavio Gaitán, Universidade Federal da Integração Latino Americana-UNILA

y The panel “Climate Change Policy, Business and Development” aims to

address the development debate, the effects of climate change on society, and the economy and environment interfaces. We welcome papers that reflect on the policy/business and policy/environmental dimensions of the topics related to climate change as well as on their societal and economic implications. During the last decade, capitalism has undergone several changes. Different sectors including social, economic and environmental life have been modified as a result of the development of global policies. . However, the strategies undertaken by core countries are still leaving the environmental agenda in the background, and driving social and environmental impacts to scales never experienced before. In North-South relations, environmental issues are presented at a more discursive level than the supposed pursuance of different practical strategies for sustainable development and growth. Regulatory measures of economic activity have generated a scenario of uncertainty. With each deeper system crisis, prospects for solving dilemmas intrinsic to the development arise again. Climate change, in this way, has become a further component that drives global change to new degrees of complexity. Methods of production face a number of public policy dilemmas that cannot be solved only with the availabe tools for regulating economic activities. Uncertainty and inevitability have become central foundations for a new level of reflection about climate change and its relations with State, Market and Society As a nonlinear phenomenon, climate change requires potent answers from all areas of public policy that in the past were not closely associated with the regulation of business. . To what extent can climate change be predicted? What are the development responses and adaptation possibilities to climate change? To what extent, may State, Market and Society establish integrated strategies for addressing climate change uncertainty scenarios? These issues are the guidelines for the discussions to which this panel is addressed. A series of actions are necessary for knowledge production about climate change, including cross scale interplay, as comprehensive understanding of the complexities that are inherent to sustainable development are needed in the face of climate change.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

-

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G134) Karsten Ronit, Department of Political Science

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 04 y 292

CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY, BUSINESS AND DEVELOPMENT

Multi-level Governance, Policy Implementation and Participation: The Mandated Participatory Planning Approach to Implementing Environmental Policy Jens Newig, Leuphana University Lüneburg Tom Koontz, University of Washington - Tacoma Climate Change and Hidric Vulnerability: How corporate and governamental actors interact in Tucuruí Brazilian Dam Gabriel Yoshino, Universidade Federal do Pará Nirvia Ravena de Sousa, Center for Advanced Studies of the Amazon NAEA-UFPa and Amazonia University Brazil Rômulo Sousa, UFPA Risk Governance On Climate Change: A Conceptual Pilot Model for a Sub-basin in Amazon Using Logic Fuzzy Rômulo Sousa, UFPA Norbert Fenzl, Federal University of Pará Global Reporting Initiative (GRI ) and the Social Impact Assessment: a comparative analysis on Amazon mining companies Patrícia Tavares, Center for Advanced Studies of the Amazon NAEA-UFPa and Amazonia University Brazil Nirvia Ravena de Sousa, Center for Advanced Studies of the Amazon NAEA-UFPa and Amazonia University Brazil

293 X

y More than 30 years ago, Charles Lindblom in his work Politics and

Markets (1977) identified the disparity between the influence of business and civil society in modern democracies. This assertion provoked a lively discussion with both supporters and opponents providing evidence for their claims. The era of extensive privatization of large parts of the public sector in the 1980s and 1990s may indeed have left an impression that the significance of the ‘public’ understood as the broad mass of citizens, is not growing but diminishing. Even with the emergence of Public-Private Partnerships, where ‘the ‘public’ seemingly appears in a prominent position, the citizenry has not really risen to the role of an equal partner and remained to a large extent in the mode of passive consumers. (Hayllar 2010) The really important decisions still seem to be taken on the government-business basis. Nevertheless, the wave of criticism of the New Public Management regime and radical emancipation of the civic sector, enabled partly by the spread of modern technologies over the last two decades, might signal another shift in the balance of power and boundaries between the state, business and civil society. Models such as Public-Private Citizen Collaboration (Hayllar and Hui 2010) or network governance (Rhodes 1997) are coming into the spotlight. In this panel, we are thus interested in countries’ experiences with finding a balance between the influence and interests of the main regulators and groups of actors. We welcome papers dealing with tensions or synergies between the public and private sector across different areas, as well as papers focused on specific strategies and methods used by individual public or private actors to advance their interests, and on the ways public interest is secured in different countries’ contexts. Questions asked in the panel include: What is the future of ‘public’ and ‘private’ in public policy practice? Has the boundary between the ‘private’ and ‘public’ shifted over the years and, if so, in what directions? In what type of arrangements can the private and public sector work in synergy? Has the business sector indeed been in a privileged position and, if so, how has it this been manifested in practice? How far have countries gone in empowering their citizens to become equal partners to both government and the business sector? What are the strategies and methods used for securing public interest in situations of a priori unequal capabilities of private and public actors? What outcomes have resulted from different types of public and private interaction?

CHAIRS

yPetr Witz, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague

yRobert Ågren, Lund University

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

Ethics based Partnership as a factor for the PPP successful implementation Sladjana Sredojevic, Association of Serbian Banks / Predrag Cvetkovic, Faculty of Law University of Nis From private governance to public government in forest and agricultural certification: The key role of state bureaucracies for private governance in Argentina and Indonesia Lukas Giessen, University Goettingen / Sarah Burns, University Goettingen The Role of Partnership Governmance in Public Management Seth A. Grossman, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey / School of Public Affairs & Administration Obscure Boundaries in Public-Private Collaboration: The Challenge of Systemic Corruption Steven Gawthorpe, Charles University

ySession 2 DISCUSSANTS -

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10:30 (Santa Agnese SA326) Lena Brogaard, Roskilde University Vera-Karin Brazova, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences

Why do countries differ in term of government support for PPP? Explaining PPP Government Support by macro-institutional and economic country characteristics of twenty European Countries Koen Verhoest, Public Administration & Management Group, Dep. of Politics, University of Antwerp / Raden Murwantara Soecipto, Faculty of Politics & Social Sciences, University of Antwerp / Ole Helby Petersen, Roskilde University Changing role of the state and the market in health care in the Czech Republic Olga Angelovská, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague Using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on regulatory approaches for front of pack food labeling Amanda Wood, University of Auckland / Tim Tenbensel, University of Auckland Amanda Wolf, Victoria University of Wellington / Boyd Swinburn, University of Auckland What is the scope for a fruitful co-existence of the public and the private in the payout phase of the pension system? - Selected theoretical arguments and lessons from CEE countries Petr Hedbavny, Charles University in Prague

ySession 3 -

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA326) Ole Helby Petersen, Roskilde University Robert Ågren, Lund University

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 05

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 05 y 294

FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN ‘PUBLIC’ AND ‘PRIVATE’ IN PUBLIC POLICY PRACTICE

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12:45 (Santa Agnese SA326) Ole Helby Petersen, Roskilde University Petr Witz, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague

No State Can Do It Alone - Private sector involvement in the civil security provision in Europe Vera-Karin Brazova, Charles University in Prague What drives innovation and successful outcomes in public-private innovation partnerships? Lena Brogaard, Roskilde University Contracting Out And Consequences For Public Service Delivery: A Systematic Review Of International Evidence Ole Helby Petersen, Roskilde University Ulf Hjelmar, Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research Utilizing Non-Financial Assets for Housing Sector Development Usman Zia Khan, Lahore Development Authority

295 X

y

In the world of policy today, the challenges are huge, complex and intertwined and they require insight gained through alliances of diverse expertise and knowhow. This entails bringing together partners in industry, the community sector and public service. Collaboration between partners – the people who make, implement and receive public policy – can help to better understand problems in their context and find workable sustainable solutions. Collaboration is here seen as the condition for the way policy solutions are found in today’s world. Collaboration is “the new normal” (Sullivan 2014). Many pressing matters of public concern are no longer seen as amenable to being solved in terms of a traditional divide between public and private actor. Whether the focus is on environmental and financial crises, healthcare, education modernization or the efficient, effective and equitable delivery of core public services, these issues are increasingly seen as simply too complex to be solved by single agencies. There is a need to find novel solutions to these problems that mobilize the capacities of all sectors and actors. Public policy making can be made more robust through enhancing discussion, debate and knowledge sharing. A core objective of the panel is to assist in this endeavor through interdisciplinary public policy research.This panel invites papers that specifically address the relationship between politics, policy and business. The panel focuses on how novel partnership and collaboration modes of governance work out in theory and practice. The key issues that papers may address include the following:

CHAIRS

yCarsten Greve, Copenhagen Business School yHelen Sullivan, Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G113) Helen Sullivan, Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne Carsten Greve, Copenhagen Business School

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 15 - PANEL 06

COLLABORATING AND PARTNERING FOR PUBLIC POLICY ACTION

Collaboration as the ‘new normal’. Global trends, public policy and everyday practices Helen Sullivan, Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne Infrastructure P3s in the Multi-Level Governance Context Within the Canadian Federal System Joseph Garcea, University of Saskatchewan Definitions Do Make a Difference: How Do Government Officials Conceive of Collaboration? Christopher Prentice, University of North Carolina Wilmington Jeffrey Brudney, University of North Carolina Wilmington

• Collaboration “as the new normal”/a state-of-play for public policy today • Public governance changes and the role of “the office” in today’s policy environment • Public-private partnerships for infrastructure and for addressing new policy challenges • Urban governance, the rise of “smart cities” and the role of firms and NGOs • Policy, governance and performance issues that involve all three sectors • Policy on how and why to govern markets, and to focus on how corporations can be “good”. • Policy on “big data” and digital governance that involves government, businesses and NGOs

y 296

297 X

yStefan Aykut, LATTS / LISIS yBilel Benbouzid, LATTS / LISIS

MODELING, SIMULATION, SCENARIZATION AND ALGORITHMS IN PUBLIC POLICY

y

Computer-based modeling, simulation, scenarization and algorithms are fast entering the realm of public policy-making, as growing computing power and the availability of “big data” dramatically increase the capacity to model, and thus to simulate, visualize, anticipate, build scenarios or predict. Crime and social unrest, toxicity, energy production and consumption or climate change and sustainability questions are examples of domains in which models developed by scientists and administrations feed into global, national and regional policy-making. In this sense, modeling and simulations represent technical innovations in governance and public action. To analyse these developments, we propose to build on insights, methods and concepts from public policy analysis, science and technology studies (STS), and the (new) political sociology of science. The objective of the panel is to investigate, first, in which domains and to what extent public policy-making has become prone to computer-based modeling, scenarization and simulation. Second, we aim to assess the nature of the changes these new practices create in public policy-making. Third, we ask if and how these techniques are becoming the object of specific forms of public regulation (e.g. emergence of a “governance of public simulation”). We propose three axes of inquiry: - Production. How and where are policy-relevant models, scenarios and algorithms produced? Is there a “market” for models? Proposals in this axis will study scientists, experts, particular industries, administrations or companies, look into the competition among those actors and their relationships with public decision-making. - Public Policy. How are these tools used in public decision-making? What transformations do we see (or not) in decision-making? Proposals in this axis will study governmental bodies, agencies, international organizations, etc., to track evolutions in the types of knowledge used, changes in decision-making procedures, modes of organization, and external communication. - Public Debate and Civil Society. How do models and simulations circulate in the public sphere, spur debates and provoke controversy? Proposals in this axis will focus on an analysis of the public space, mobilizations and controversies, to 1) track resistance to new forms of public policy-making based on modeling or simulation, and 2) see to what extend social movements or NGOs use models and simulations to back their claims.

y 298

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

The Integrating Assessment Modeling Community: overview, structuring and interactions with the IPCC expertise Christophe Cassen, CIRED Beatrice Cointe, CIRED (Centre for International Research on the Environment and Development) Social Minister for a Day: Analyzing the SORESI microsimulation webmodel as a tool for policy formation and civic knowledge Katrin Gasior, European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research Politicizing energy futures : A history of energy turnaround scenarios in Germany Stefan Aykut, LATTS / LISIS Has foresight changed the anticipatory policy work in Whitehall? The cases of energy and health policy in the United Kingdom Maxime Petit Jean, Catholic University of Louvain

ySession 2 DISCUSSANTS -

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G114) Bilel Benbouzid, LATTS-LISIS

TOPIC 16 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 16 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 16 - SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G114) Stefan Aykut, LATTS-LISIS David Demortain, INRA

Making the data-driven city. How does the socio-technical shaping of data analytics change the government of the city? Antoine Courmont, Sciences Po Crime prediction and algoritmic reasonning Bilel Benbouzid, LATTS-LISIS The bureaucratic legitimation of modeling. Insights from the history of QSAR modeling at the US Environmental Protection Agency David Demortain, INRA Henri Boullier, Université Paris-Est/LISIS

299 X

y In this panel, we aim to empirically explore the policies and processes

by which governments at various levels aim to contribute to energy transition and climate change mitigation. Three topics have our specific interest: • the interplay between multiple levels of government, • the mechanisms at work that enhance or hamper the formulation and implementation of policies and projects aiming to contribute to energy transition, and • the role of government(s) within these processes.

We take a critical stance toward the ways governments design and implement policies to green energy systems. We focus on the institutional perspective and the use of power in decision-making (both in national policy making processes and local implementation projects). Both policies aimed at innovation and diffusion of alternative ‘green’ energy technologies are addressed as well as policies that lower harmful effects vis-à-vis energy production, use and emissions of greenhouse gases. Empirical papers on energy and climate change mitigation policies are welcomed. They can be either qualitative (case studies) or quantitative. We encourage the use of policy theories, but also welcome papers using policy-oriented theoretical approaches from transition studies. Comparative papers, comparing policy experiences in different regions or countries and comparing policy experiences in different sectors, are also welcomed. With this panel we also aim to contribute to the further building of an international community studying issues of policy and governance in the field of energy transition and climate change mitigation, a field that is dominated by engineering sciences leaving the highly relevant governance issues understudied.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 300

Thursday, July 2ndh 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G108) Helle Ørsted Nielsen, Aarhus University

Shifting gears to post carbon living: policy making in the Australian socio/political context Yvonne Haigh, Murdoch University Navigating Sustainability in the Port of Rotterdam: The LNG Case Natalya Rijk, Erasmus University Rotterdam Legal design of arrangements for regional government subsidies facilitating innovative private projects concerning sustainable energy experiments. Michiel Heldeweg, University of Twente / Marc Harmsen, University of Twente Maurits Sanders, University of Twente Corporates working with governmental agencies to create value – the case of public-private partnerships for smart grid and e-mobility investments Mary Jean Burer, EPFL

ySession 3 -

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G108) Yvonne Haigh, Murdoch University

Conflicting interests: Implications for developing sustainable biofuel technologies? Helle Ørsted Nielsen, Aarhus University Anders Branth Pedersen, Aarhus University Enabling unilateral action by early movers to remove hold-up problems in unanimity-based international climate change negotiations: the case of maritime emissions Dirk Heine, Erasmus University Rotterdam, University of Bologna, Hamburg University Goran Dominioni, Erasmus University Rotterdam - RILE Institute Crisis and the “U-turn” of energy efficiency policy in residential sector: institutional effects on Belgian regional policies Sebastien Pradella, Centre d’Etudes en Habitat Durable – UCL

ySession 2 -

yEllen Van Bueren, Delft University of Technology yThomas Hoppe, University of Twente

TOPIC 16 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 16 - PANEL 02

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION GOVERNANCE

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G108) Sebastien Pradella, Centre d’Etudes en Habitat Durable - UCL

Multi-scalar transition framework: the case of governing the Swiss energy transition Reinier Verhoog, EPFL Local energy visions in Europe: a public policy perspective Bauke Steenhuisen, Delft University of Technology Ellen van Bueren, Delft University of Technology Exploring the relation between institutional support structures and viability of low carbon energy initiatives. An embedded case study of the Fryslân region in the Netherlands. W.D.B. (Beau) Warbroek, University of Twente / Frans Coenen, University of Twente / Thomas Hoppe, University of Twente Participation in social and technical innovations in climate actions Frans Coenen, University of Twente How Science May Drive National and International Policies: The Role of Non-State Actors and Sub-state Actors in the International Environmental Governance and Energy Security Paolo Davide Farah, West Virginia University

301 X

y

Whether and how policymakers should have a role in supporting collaborative innovation within technology clusters is still debated in literature: there is no consensus on (and no clear-cut empirical evidence of) the effect of public policy on innovation performance and cooperation success. This panel aims to discuss this topic considering the demand side perspective, i.e. the perspective of companies that should benefit from public policies dedicated to Technology Clusters. To this aim, the panel invites companies, associations, universities and public institutions to debate and compare different ideas on how policymakers should act to improve collaboration, productivity and innovation of clusters. Should their action be focused on removing obstacles, simplifying rules and reducing inefficiencies, or are there good reasons to give them the power to define targets, select technologies, identify champions and regions, foster relations and suggest networks? In this debate, several well known trade-offs need to be investigated: knowledge sharing versus protection, risk and cost sharing versus appropriability of returns, local investments versus global benefits, open versus closed communities, local versus global networks. On all these issues, the public perspective is usually completely different, if not absolutely opposite, to the companies’ perspective. That makes it necessary to have demand-side and supply-side actors at the same table. Hopefully, this would foster significant steps both in scientific research and in the practice of companies and institutions.This panel intends to discuss this topic from the demand side, i.e. from the perspective of those companies that should benefit from public policies dedicated to Technology Clusters. To this aim, the panel invites companies, associations, universities and public institutions to debate and compare different ideas on how policymakers should act to improve collaboration, productivity and innovation of clusters. Should their action be focused on removing obstacles, simplifying rules and reducing inefficiencies or are there good reasons to give them the power to define targets, select technologies, identify champions and regions, foster relations and propose networks? In this very perspective, papers are welcome with reference to Technology Clusters, more precisely on the following sub-topics: • • • • •

y 302

CHAIRS

yRaffaella Manzini, LIUC Università Cattaneo yMichele Arra, Technical Scientific Commettee, Lombardia Aerospace Cluster

ySession 1 -

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Gemelli G135)

Current Challenges of the Upper Austrian IT Cluster: Sub-Clustering and the Role of the Policymaker Pablo Collazzo, WU-Vienna University of Economics Changing policy perspectives: The environmental technology cluster in Upper Austria Alexander Auer, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business From Open Innovation Policies To Cluster Initiatives: The Formation of a Technological Cluster Jessica Giusti, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness, LIUC Università Cattaneo Stefania Ferrario, LIUC Università Cattaneo The New Cluster Policy Of Lombardy Region: Evidence From Nine Technological Clusters Jessica Giusti, Institute for Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness - LIUC Stefania Ferrario, Liuc- Università Carlo Cattaneo Large- and small-scale policy instruments for collaboration: Lessons learned from life science clusters in Chicago, Copenhagen and Singapore Sarah Giest, Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University The role of space technology in defining a new international-political system Giorgio Petroni, Inaf (Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica) Davide Gianluca Bianchi, Eupolis Lombardia

TOPIC 16 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 16 - PANEL 03

TECHNOLOGY CLUSTERS: SUPPORTING COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION

Developing organizational and relational human capital Does distance matter? Local, national, regional technology clusters Collaborative and open innovation processes The protection paradox: knowledge sharing vs knowledge protection Technology transfer and the improvement of

303 X

yHelen Margetts, University of Oxford

DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC POLICY

y This panel will discuss trends and developments in digital government and the implications for the policy-making process, public management reform, and the nature of the contemporary state. We call for papers dealing with some aspect of digital government and its relationship with public policy, involving the presentation of new data, methodological innovation, or theoretical development in how we understand digital government. Papers could cover (but are not restricted to) the following topics and questions:

• Examples of policy innovation, where digital technologies and widespread use of the internet have opened up new policy options • New methods for studying and understanding digital government, such as webmetrics or the analysis of ‘big data’ on citizen-government interactions or governmental operations • The use of experiments in digital government, making viable new forms of policies and services that ‘nudge’ citizens towards socially optimal behaviour that furthers public good provision. • How do digital technologies and widespread use of the internet challenge conventional government approaches to policy formulation and implementation? • What approaches are governments taking to use the social web to foster citizen engagement? • Are open data intiatives making governments more transparent? • How does digital government bring bring new players into the policy process and what is the impact for policy-making? • To what extent are internet-based technologies making the policy process more democratic? To what extent can big data approaches be used in policy-making? This list of topics is not exhaustive, and other questions related to government, policy making and the Internet will be considered. All papers will be considered for publication in the peer-reviewed journal Policy and Internet, and offered a fast track reviewing process.

y 304

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

Privatization and Online Games Regulation in China: A Shifting Power Dynamic Lara Arnason, University of Edinburgh Trial at a Distance : Videoconference Technology as a Policy Tool? Laurence Dumoulin, National center for scientific research CNRS Digital platforms and policy-making in the EU: tracing the drivers for success Donatella Selva, Luiss Guido Carli Policy Attitudes Towards ICT-Enabled Innovation and Change: an Interpretative Framework for Digital Innovation Governance in the Public Sector Gianluigi Viscusi, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) - CDM-MTEI-CSI Gianluca Misuraca, European Commission, JRC-IPTS Explaining Open Data usage patterns: the case of Data.gov.uk Jonathan Bright, Oxford Internet Institute Helen Margetts, University of Oxford Ning Wang, University of Oxford Scott Hale, University of Oxford Network Governance and Digital Era Policy Instrument Kathleen McNutt, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina Amy Zarzeczny, University of Regina

ySession 2 DISCUSSANT -

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA326) Helen Margetts, University of Oxford

TOPIC 17 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 17 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 17 - INTERNET AND POLICY

Wednesday, July 1st 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA326) Helen Margetts, University of Oxford

Online Communities of Practice: The Significance of Managers Elazar Lev-On, Ariel University Crossing the digital desert in Sub Saharan Africa - does policy matter? Xiangxuan XU, Centre for International Business Studies, University of Gothenburg Robert Wentrup, CIBS Open Government Policy in Canada: Will Social Media Change the Interaction between Government and Citizens? Maria Gintova, Ryerson University The policy making of digital politics: Examining the local level in Sweden Gustav Lidén, Mid Sweden University “Whose Post is it Anyway?”: Social Network Site Usage Patterns of Parliamentary Assistants and MKs Chen Sabag-Ben Porat, Bar Ilan University Public policy and social media: How sentiment analysis can support policy-makers across the policy cycle Fedra Negri, Università degli Studi di Milano Andrea Ceron, Università degli Studi di Milano

305 X

CHAIR

y The environment in which public policy is made has entered a period

ySession 1

of dramatic change. Widespread use of digital technologies, the Internet and social media means both citizens and governments leave digital traces that can be harvested to generate big data. Policy-making therefore takes place in an increasingly rich data environment, which poses both promises and threats to policy-makers. Recent years have seen increasing attention on how big data approaches can uncover patterns of human behaviour and help predict social trends; the insights gained from transactional information can also be used to drive evidence-based policy making and ‘nudge’ political behaviour. But governments have lagged behind other sectors in exploiting the potential of big data to inform public policy, and face a number of ethical and logistical challenges in doing so. This panel calls for papers that explore the new research and public policy frontiers opened up by big data, aiming to serve as a forum to encourage discussion across disciplinary boundaries on how to exploit big data to inform policy debates. We welcome papers reporting on innovative research exploiting large datasets or applying novel methodological tools (from experiments, to crowd-sourcing, to online ethnography) aimed at overcoming the limitations of big data; papers that report empirical results and employ policy analysis approaches that would not have been possible without access to digital data; papers that further methodological development in data science; case studies of data-driven policy initiatives such as open data or big data programmes, or crowdsourcing platforms; papers that investigate the ethical and moral dilemmas provoked by data science methods and big data approaches; papers that incorporate expertise from more than one academic discipline. Applicants will have the opportunity to co-submit their paper to the journal Policy and Internet, which will operate a fast-track review process for accepted papers.

y 306

DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA221) Jonathan Bright, Oxford Internet Institute

Information production and social value of open data: a conceptual modelling framework for public policy Gianluigi Viscusi, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) - CDM-MTEI-CSI Carlo Batini, Università degli Studi Milano-Bicocca Networked Collective Action in the 2014 Hong Kong Occupy Movement: Analysing a Facebook sharing network King-wa Fu, The University of Hong Kong / CH Chan, The University of Hong Kong If the Evidence Fits: Big Data, Experimentation and Public Policy Marie Joan Kristine Gloria, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute James Hendler, RPI Big Data and the Tools of Government Helen Margetts, University of Oxford

ySession 2 -

yHelen Margetts, University of Oxford

TOPIC 17 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 17 - PANEL 02

BIG DATA, DATA SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA221) Jonathan Bright, Oxford Internet Institute

Making the data-driven city. How does the socio-technical shaping of data analytics change the government of the city? Antoine Courmont, Sciences Po Police as algorithm Bilel Benbouzid, LATTS-LISIS Soft data and public policy: Twitter data for urban policy making Marta Severo, Université de Lille 3 Amel Feredj, RIATE / CNRS

307 X

y The internet, social networks and new information and communication

technologies have changed relationships among individuals and between individuals and the state. The web opens new possibilities for collective enterprises to decrease citizens’ informational deficits about State actions, to expand political participation and deliberation, and to increase the accountability of elected representatives and state bureaucracy. Individuals through the internet can canvass different perspectives and knowledge to interpret and analyse information produced by the State. Additionally, these changes also decrease costs of collective action for social movements. In this sense, new technologies of information and communication have the potential to affect public policies at different moments and under different theoretical assumptions. This panel for Public Policy Management and New Technologies opens a call for papers for the Second International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP) in Milan, Italy. This Panel will focus on studies that engage in discussing the ways in which new information and communication technologies can be grasped by public policies either by theoretical approaches or by empirical studies. The main objective of the panel is to discuss ways that these new technologies can influence the formulation and evaluation of public policies.

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

-

y 308

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL1-02/G153) Marco Ruediger, Fundação Getulio Vargas

Policy-making using online social data: the political representativeness of Brazilian Twitter users. Pedro Lenhard, Fundação Getúlio Vargas Luis Felipe da Graça, Fundação Getúlio Vargas João Victor Dias, FGV-DAPP The regulatory framework for pay television in Brazil Virginia Baumhardt, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Ready to change? Exploring the dynamics behind the users’ support for alternative ways of financing the cultural markets Joan-Josep Vallbe, Institute for Information Law (IViR) Balázs Bodó, Institute for Information Law (IViR) Christian Handke, Erasmus University Rotterdam Cyberspace: a new locus for public control of policymakers? Daniela Melo, FGV/DAPP Prometheus Bound: Chaining the Information Collector Giant Rotem Medzini, University of Haifa, Faculty of Law

ySession 2 -

yMarco Ruediger, Fundação Getulio Vargas

TOPIC 17 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 17 - PANEL 03

PUBLIC POLICY MANAGEMENT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Via Lanzone VL1-02/G153) Luis Felipe da Graça, Fundação Getúlio Vargas

Electronic Government Policies at Minas Gerais State: Institutional Context, ICT Management and Outcomes Marconi Martins de Laia, Fundação João Pinheiro The budgetary mosaic tool: is it possible to make complex public data more accessible for citizens? Andressa Falconiery, Fundação Getulio Vargas Rafael Martins de Souza, Fundação Getulio Vargas - Diretoria de Análise de Políticas Públicas Marco Ruediger, Fundação Getulio Vargas Information and communication technologies and the drivers for political instability Marcio Wohlers, UNICAMP - State University of Campinas Martha Garcia-Murillo, Syracuse University Zaber Monioul, Carnegie Mellon University Can ICT smartly support Co-Production in the public sector? Mariagrazia Fugini, Politecnico di Milano Technological change in the public sector: redefining control, power and authority in traditional bureaucracies Piret Tõnurist, Tallinn University of Technology

309 X

y

The spreading of Internet practices worldwide is increasingly putting the debate and the negotiations concerning Internet Policy at the centre of international disputes. As result, we are witnessing to a growing scholarly oriented body of research addressing the fast developing debate concerning contentions clustered around internet policy challenges. Here, particular attention concerns how to enhance inclusiveness in Internet Governance decision making processes, in order to represent the multiple dimensions characterizing the Internet itself. Given its nature, multiple actors including Governments, representative of the private sectors, as well as civil society organizations are called to establish a so-defined multistakeholder policy making approach. With this, the governance of the internet should be run with the coordination of all parties involved to work for the good of the internet infrastructure. However, while a multistakeholder approach has been advocated for over 10 years, i.e. since the launch of the Internet Governance negotiations at the first United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003, we still lack evidence of the empirical outcomes of this approach. It is still unclear whether or not this policy making approach is successful in establishing an international and multidisciplinary policy capability and decision making processes able to react efficiently and as fast as the internet challenges develop. This panel calls for papers exploring the increasing centrality of Internet Governance negotiations in international disputes, with a particular focus on how internet policy making processes influence this discourse. Within this framework, this panel will include papers that address theoretical or empirically grounded research providing (1) evidence on successful and failing cases in the field of internet policy clustered around a multistakeholder approach; (2) methodological approaches able to frame novel policy network research strategy; and (3), research leading towards an answer to the key question whether and how the multistakeholder decision making processes influence the capability of institutions to provide policy response in the fast developing Internet Governance debate. By addressing these questions, this panel aims to frame the policy challenges attached to the Internet Governance debate, and expand our understanding of the decision making process concerning internet policies. Finally, with the aim of establishing clear lines of dialogues between relevant scholarly empirical research and innovative approach, this panel calls for papers combining novel research and empirical cases that capture the policy making challenges linked to the broader Internet Governance debate, as an emerging topic with long-term implications.

y 310

CHAIR

ySession 1 -

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Santa Agnese SA222)

Enhancing better sense of proportionality using data normalization for cross-country comparison Han-Teng Liao, Oxford Internet Institute Yi-Ching Liao, Norwegian Information Security laboratory On the Value of Internet Names and Numbers: A High Stakes Game? Ashwin Mathew, University of California, Berkeley/Packet Clearing House Beyond Multistakeholder Governance? Internet Geopolitics and Constitutionalization Processes Mauro Santaniello, Università degli Studi di Salerno

ySession 2 -

yAndrea Calderaro, European University Institute

TOPIC 17 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 17 - PANEL 04

POLICY MAKING IN GOVERNING THE INTERNET: COMPARING NOVEL APPROACHES AND RISING CHALLENGES

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Santa Agnese SA222)

Digital copyright policies in France : political configuration and the limits of a multistakeholder approach Anne Bellon, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne Balancing Fundamental Rights on the Internet. Service Provider as Quasi-Constitutional Actors? Marco Bassini, University of Verona Prometheus Bound: Chaining the Information Collector Giant Rotem Medzini, University of Haifa Will Chinese internet industries become a ‘Chinese factory’ or ‘Chinese market’? – policies in Chinese internet industries Bingqing Xia, Macau University of Science and Technology

311 X

CHAIR

Catholic University Leuven

PUBLIC POLICIES AND THE PUBLIC

y A sociology of Actors of Public Policy. This panel presents diferent

countries in which diverging contexts lead to the implementation of social policies. We will see how partisan politics, exterior threats and the more general “public” affect politics and affect public policies.

ySession 1 -

-

y 312

yMarleen Brans, Public Governance Institute,

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G115)

Veto Players, Governance and Its Influences on Economic Performance and Income Distribution: Evidence for Latin American and East Asian Countries Jose Ferreira Filho, Catholic University of Pernambuco Performance Audit and Policy Evaluation: On the same or parallel tracks? Milena Lazarevic, European Policy Centre - CEP Jovana Marović, Institute Alternativa Simonida Kacarska, European Policy Institute Milos Djindjic, European Policy Centre - CEP Can we tame the shrew? - The evolution of Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, its rise, its fall and the prospects of cooperation with moderate Islamists” Kleanthis Kyriakidis, University of the Aegean

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 01

TOPIC 18 - SPECIFIC POLICY TOPICS

313 X

y Recent changes in food and agriculture policy in Western democracies

call for a re-evaluation of established findings and the application of new concepts in policy analysis. Traditionally this policy field has been a prime example of compartmentalised policy-making: an institutionally insulated policy field with a closed policy community, stabilised by considerable benefits to the insiders, surrounded by high entry barriers in terms of arcane technical regulations and diffuse costs to taxpayers, consumers and the environment. Nevertheless, the policy agenda in the food and agricultural sector has been considerably broadened with agri-food policy issues now interlinking with other policy domains (food safety, food security, bio-technology and patents, energy supplies, environmental protection, development aid, trade, climate change etc.). New ideas and values which sometimes conflict, or which are not always easily reconcilable, with those previously guiding agricultural policy have entered the broader agricultural and food policy domain. In contrast to traditional farm income support, where policy-making was controlled by a single or a well-integrated set of complementary domestic institutions, the new policy issues are dealt with in a more fluid, emerging or ad hoc institutional context in which national, regional and global institutions interact. This development has led to a need for more coordination and has forced policy-makers to engage in inter-institutional policy making which refers to a process of coordinating policies hosted in different policy sectors. This type of policy process has ramifications for interest groups and government agencies in other policy arenas, and so they too become involved in the development of the new agri-food policies. The panel invites papers which explore the conceptual frameworks needed to analyse inter-institutional policy-making and governance in the agri-food sector or which undertake empirical analysis to provide insights into the new policy situation, thereby contributing to broader discussions on food governance and wider debates on policy.

CHAIRS

Australian National University

yPeter Feindt, Wageningen University and Research Centre

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

DISCUSSANTS -

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Gemelli G016) Jale Tosun, Heidelberg University Eve Fouilleux, CNRS/CIRAD/University of Montpellier

Moving Beyond De-compartmentalisation? Inter-institutional policy making in Agriculture: an examination of the 2013 CAP reform Alan Greer, University of the West of England The greening of the Common agricultural policy : framing of arguments between farmers unions and environmental NGOs in Belgium. Anne Guisset, Université Saint-Louis Citizen-consumers’ influence in the Swiss agro-food system: towards a new politics of food? Remi Schweizer, Institute of political, historical and international studies, University of Lausanne Assessing the influence of weakly resourced farm groups on agriculture policy. The case of dairy sector in France and Germany Matthieu Repplinger, CEE - Sciences Po Paris Global Organic Agriculture Governance through Standards – When Inter-Institutional Policy-Making Oscillates between Global Harmonization and Regional Integration Sandra Schwindenhammer, Humboldt University of Berlin, Institute of Social Sciences

ySession 3 -

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G016) Gerard Breeman, Leiden University Campus The Hague Adrian Kay, The Australian National University

When the sector is always back on the policy stage: About food security policies and their incapacity to escape the ‘productionist’ paradigm Eve Fouilleux, CNRS/CIRAD/University of Montpellier The new politics of food and agriculture: institutions, policy networks and professional communities in the German controversy over agricultural patents Peter Feindt, Wageningen University and Research Centre Declining aid dependence and changing ideas about agricultural policy in East Africa AnneMette Kjaer, Aarhus University Debates on GM crops in Europe: Implications for international food and agricultural policies Ksenia Gerasimova, Cambridge Challenging Agricultural Normalism in the Global Food Security Debate Carsten Daugbjerg, Crawford School, Australian National University / Arild Farsund, University of Stavanger / Oluf Langhelle, University of Stavanger

ySession 2

-

y 314

yCarsten Daugbjerg, Crawford School,

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 02

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 02

THE NEW POLICY AND POLITICS OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G016) Arild Farsund, University of Stavanger Adrian Kay, The Australian National University

Territorial collaboration in agricultural policy making Gerard Breeman, Leiden University Campus The Hague Your Presence is Required: Public Mandates and Nonprofit Participation in Collaborative Policymaking Chris Koski, Reed College / Julia Carboni, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis / Saba Siddiki, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis/ Abdul-Akeem Sadiq, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Toward a processual approach on policy integration: a conceptual approach Jeroen Candel, Wageningen University / Robbert Biesbroek, Wageningen University Exogenous shocks and the emergence of cross-sectoral coordination institutions: An analysis of the Brazilian honey sector Jale Tosun, Heidelberg University / Maurício de Moraes Marcondes, Heidelberg University

315 X

y Since the 1980s the public sector has gone through New Public

Management-driven modernization which aimed at recasting the internal structures of the public sector (by replacing traditional Max Weberian features with private sector-derived managerialist principles) as well as at reorganizing its external operations, essentially including the provision of public and social services (particularly through introducing private sector-typical competition and “privatization”). Notwithstanding country and sector-specific variance this period showed significant cross country convergence in terms of passing from government- centred organisational fabric to a pluralisation and “marketization” of public, semi-public (“mixed”), private for-profit as well as non-public not-for-profit (“NGO”) actors and providers and, in a largely convergent trend, to an institutional web of actor networks which, in a dominant conceptual debate, has been identified as “governance” structure. Since the late 1990s and early 2000s another thrust of organizational shifts has taken shape which points at different and divergent trajectories. For one, in some countries, in critically and negatively reappraising the effects of “market-liberalization” and “privatization” of service delivery and in „rediscovering“ the potential and assets of the public (municipal) sector service provision a “comeback” of the public/municipal sector and an ensuing remunicipalization of service provision have gained momentum. By contrast, in other countries, under the impact of the sovereign debt another wave of “outsourcing” and “privatizing” public and social services provision has been set off. Moreover, the austerity-inflicted cut-backs in service provision have “from below” called forth “civil society”-type initiatives, protest and self-help groups to take service provision in their own hands. In focusing on this most recent (some call it “post- NPM”) phase of (external) public sector modernization in public and social services delivery the proposed panel and the called for papers called for are expected to contribute to fill the noticeable gap in empirical research and conceptual debate in this matter. At the same time, the panel proposes to link up with, and complement an ongoing thematically congruent working group that has been formed within the COST Action “Local Public Sector Reform: An International Comparison”.

CHAIRS

yHellmut Wollmann, Humboldt University of Berlin yStig Montin, School of Public Administration, University of Gothenburg

ySession 1 -

-

-

The impact of NPM on efficiency: An analysis of Madrid´s hospitals Judith Clifton, University of Cantabria and Cornell University Public and Private Production in a Mixed Delivery System: Regulation, Competition and Costs Germà Bel, Universitat de Barcelona Jordi Rosell, Universitat de Barcelona From NPM reforms towards post-NPM shifts: Changing accountability regimes and privatized systems of public service provision Eva Lieberherr, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Tanja Klenk, University of Potsdam (Re)municipalisation Trends in the Water Sector: Divergence across five countries Eva Lieberherr, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Carsten Herzberg, Potsdam University Jiro Uno, Sapporo University Why Governments Outsource Support Processes: An Analysis of the Flemish Public Sector Jan Boon, University of Antwerp Koen Verhoest, Public Administration & Management Group, Dep. of Politics, University of Antwerp Bruno De Borger, University of Antwerp

ySession 2 DISCUSSANTS -

-

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA015)

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 03

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 03 y 316

PUBLIC SECTOR MODERNIZATION BETWEEN NPM-DRIVEN SHIFTS AND POST-NPM MOVES

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA015) Natalia Butusova, Voronezh State University

Public vs non-profit incarceration in the Netherlands Mattheus Wassenaar, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration / VU University Amsterdam Raymond Gradus, VU University Amsterdam Toon Molleman, Ministry of Security and Justice The provision of public and social services in European countries from government to governance? Hellmut Wollmann, Humboldt University of Berlin Profitable public enterprises: evidence from global deals Chiara Del Bo, Università degli Studi di Milano Between hierarchy, market and networks. The case of public utility and care for the elderly in Sweden Stig Montin, School of Public Administration, University of Gothenburg

317 X

y This panel aims to explore various innovations in teaching public policy

around the world and what difference they make to learning. In the last 30 years, public policy has abeen taught in terms of lectures, case studies and project work such as the policy analysis exercise. However, in recent years, schools of public policy around the world have been experimenting with various methods of teaching. These innovations, for instance, include flipped method, MOOCs, field trips, 36 Hour Challenge, E- Learning Week, meditation, internships, Ambassadpr walk, world cafe, poster presentations, role playing, immersive learning, mind mapping, team teaching, video conferencing, prezzy videos, among many others. These innovations are not yet widely known among those who teach in schools of public policy. Little is known what these innovations are, their cost, how they work and what difference they make in terms of learning compared to traditional teaching methods. In this panel, we seek presentations to help answer the following questions. First, what are these innovative teaching practices, what is their pedagogical purpose and how cost effective are they in terms of learning? Second, are there differences in the way that public policy / public administration is taught in different parts of the world and if so why? Third, are these innovations merely passing fads or are they sustained? Finally, what are the incentives to innovate or not innovate?

CHAIRS

yEduardo Araral, Graduate School of Public Policy, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan

yM Ramesh, LKY School of Public Policy

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G121) Ora-orn Poocharoen, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 04

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 04 y 318

INNOVATIONS IN TEACHING PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: WHAT ARE THEY AND DO THEY WORK?

A New Agenda For Public Policy In Brazil: the Emergence and Aims of the advocates of “The Public Field” Lindijane Almeida , UFRN Lucio Magda, University of Brasilia Sandra Gomes, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) The Microfoundations of Social Entrepreneurship: Ostromian Polycentricity and Hayekian Dispersed Knowledge Gordon Shockley, Arizona State University Innovation in teaching public policy: the case of the BA in Politics and Public Administration of UADE (Argentina) Nelson Cardozo, Universidad de Buenos Aires Show and Tell John Carroll, Nova Southeastern University

319 X

y This panel addresses the topic of cultural policy, which we define as

“the range of activities that governments undertake – or do not undertake – in the arena of ‘culture’” (Gray 2010, p. 222). This is a field that has several distinct and challenging peculiarities, such as the difficulty of defining its very object, but also shares many characteristics of other policy areas. With this panel we aim to address both by incorporating mainstream public policy approaches into the study of an oft-neglected policy field. Papers are invited that adopt a range of theoretical and methodological approaches. We are also open to submissions on wide range of cultural policies, including, but not limited to, media policy, the politics of remembrance, the politics of cultural diversity, as well as cross-policy sector comparative papers. We invite submissions notably on the following topics: • Institutions in cultural policy, Institutions are a vital aspect of policy-making. We define institutions broadly as not only the physical spaces in which policy is made (such as a legislature), but the socio-cultural rules and behaviours that influence policy as well. Papers are welcomed on institutional formation and design, institutional change, structure and agency, and the impact of formal and informal institutions on policy and vice versa. • Ideas in cultural policy, “Ideas” play an essential role in understanding public policy (Cairney 2012). Here we welcome papers on how political, economic, and social ideologies, norms, and values manifest themselves in policy; how ideas are treated by policy-makers; and how culture is defined and/or used in policy narratives. • Networks in cultural policy, Contributions on networks are welcomed both on the “metaphorical” analysis of patterns of collaboration as well as on concrete social network analysis. We are interested in themes such as expertise, knowledge, coalition formation, the roles of specific collective or individual actors, and their resources and strategies in cultural policy-making processes.

y 320

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

DISCUSSANT

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G108) Clive Gray, University of Warwick

Analysing policy change: The emergence of the new Creative Europe Guarantee Facility Rosa Perez Monclus, King’s College London The Cultural crucible : the Reorganization and Renewal of Institutions in the Cultural capitals Landscape Maxime Jaffre, EHESS - Centre Norbert Elias, Marseille Elena Raevskikh, Centre Norbert Elias Emmanuel Pedler, EHESS Is There a Creative Industries Policy In Thailand? Institutions, Actors and Ideas and the Policy Process Alongkorn Parivudhiphongs, King’s College London Radical Convergence and Its Challenges to Media Regulation Aske Kammer, Centre for Journalism, University of Southern Denmark

ySession 3 S -

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G108) Kate Mattocks, City University London Lisa Marx, University of Geneva

The circulation of models of cultural policies in Turkey. Jean-François Polo, Institute of Political Studies of Rennes Comparative policy research in arts education. Prolegomena for a review Teunis IJdens, Netherlands Centre of Expertise in Cultural Education and Amateur Arts Dynamics of Knowledge Production in Cultural Policy Eleonora Redaelli, University of Oregon / Jonathan Paquette, University of Ottawa Organizational structure and actions of the Brazilian government for the development of creative territories Magnus Emmendoerfer, Universidade Federal de Viçosa Alexandre Sette Abrantes Fioravante, Universidade Estadual de Campinas ‘My Name is Legion For We are Many’: Cultural Policies, Sectoral Disaggregation and Differentiated Network Specificity Clive Gray, University of Warwick

ySession 2 -

yKate Mattocks, City University London yLisa Marx, University of Geneva

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 05

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 05

INSTITUTIONS, IDEAS, AND NETWORKS IN CULTURAL POLICY

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G108) Eleonora Redaelli, University of Oregon

Cultural minorities, new patterns of collaboration and the challenge of past policy design Andrea Salvona, Univerity of Stirling, Cultural networks: rhetoric, policy and practice in Portugal Augusto Santos-Silva, University of Porto, Faculty of Economics Civic Enterprise as Enabler of Cultural Policy: An Institutional Framework for Art Districts in Seoul Kris Hartley, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore Cultural policy in conditions of economic crisis Myrsini Zorba, C. Simitis Foundation

321 X

y Policy and Society, Special Issue.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT

Theoretical explanations and empirical research concerning policy entrepreneurship in domestic policymaking have significantly enhanced our understanding of policy change. However, there are several weaknesses and understudied areas in regard to the role of agency in institutional change, institutional entrepreneurship. Specifically, when it comes to explaining institutional change, we have very limited knowledge on the agency of individual actors who initiate and implement institutional change in the various stages of domestic policymaking processes. This panel calls for a bridge building between state of the art in institutional theory and public policy theory with special reference to institutional entrepreneurship. It encourages conceptual and empirical contributions on (1) our conceptual understanding of institutional entrepreneurship and the various modes of institutional change; (2) similarities and differences in the concepts of policy entrepreneurs, ideational entrepreneurs, and institutional entrepreneurs; (3) structural, institutional and agency-level enabling conditions informing institutional entrepreneurship; and (4) a systematic approach that enhances qualitative rigor in inductive interpretive research on this topic (list is not exhaustive).

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 322

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G113) Darryl Jarvis, Hong Kong Institute of Education

Institutional Entrepreneurship and Organizational Learning: Financial Stability Policy Design in Turkey Mustafa Yagci, Koc University Institutional Entrepreneurship: What insights can public policy scholars draw from the field of organization studies? Caner Bakir, Koc University Brokers, entrepreneurs and leaders in policy dynamics: from individual actors to types of agency Maria Tullia Galanti, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano Giliberto Capano, Scuola normale superiore Institutional change and entrepreneurship – all that different from policy change and policy entrepreneurs? Some comparative clarifications and suggestions for structuring their future study Jan Seifert, German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA)

ySession 2 -

yCaner Bakir, Koc University yDarryl Jarvis, Hong Kong Institute of Education

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 06

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 06

INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING

Thursday, July 2nd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G113) Caner Bakir, Koc University

Institutional Entrepreneurship, Regulatory Layering and Distributive Policies: Institutional Change in Fiscal Policy in EU Pre-Accession States H. Tolga Bolukbasi, Bilkent University A Discursive Approach to Regulation Between Continuity and Change in the Telecommunications Sector Maria Stella Righettini, University of Padova Stefano Sbalchiero, University of Padova “A Policy Entrepreuneur in action: the case of the Brazilian Administrative Reform in the 1990s Leonardo Leite, Getulio Vargas Foundation - FGV EAESP Ana Claudia Niedhardt Capella, UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista Explaining the Striking Revival of Financial Activism in Korea since 1997: Towards an agent-centred understanding of developmental states and their evolution Elizabeth Thurbon, UNSW Australia

323 X

y Accounting and performance measurement have often been heral-

ded as neutral and objective tools, insulated from policy and politics. This perspective, however, has been challenged by an alternative view which highlights that accounting systems belong to the organizational and societal reality, and thus, can be used to sustain particular patterns of organizational visibility, to create specific structures of power within organizations and at their interfaces with other actors, to influence the economic and social context, to contribute to rationalization and legitimation processes. Moreover, accounting systems not only provide inputs for decision making and accountability processes, but can also be the result of political processes and decisions that take place both at the organizational and at a system-wide level. Naturally, this is particularly true for public-sector accounting, broadly defined to include both budgeting and financial reporting. The politics of accounting and the role of accounting in politics, in general and with specific respect to public-sector accounting, are a fascinating and complex topic that so far has been largely under-investigated. The current institutional context, the fiscal and economic crises, the diffusion of new technologies, and the reliance on collaborations and networks in the provision of public services, moreover, are opening this topic up to new challenges.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

yMariafrancesca Sicilia, University of Bergamo yEugenio Anessi Pessina, Università Cattolica yIleana Steccolini, Bocconi University

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G112)

PPP equity sales – extending financialization Stewart Smyth, University of Sheffield Individualisation, accounting and management in the public sector Henk ter Bogt, University of Groningen Biased budgeting in the public sector: Evidence from Italian Local Governments Mariafrancesca Sicilia, University of Bergamo Eugenio Anessi Pessina, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 07

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 07

ACCOUNTING FOR POLITICS AND THE POLITICS OF ACCOUNTING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Any research strategy is welcome, as long as it effectively addresses the issues at hand and rigorously adheres to the methodology adopted, be it theoretical or empirical, quantitative or qualitative.

y 324

325 X

y In Turkey, the state maintains its power to influence the economy by

means of interactions that it builds with the business environment. It keeps its control over the economy either by authoritarian means or relying on civil society. The state also uses its redistribution potential in order to influence the behaviour of the lower classes in order to gain electoral support. This panel aims to analyse the multiple faces of neoliberal policies in Turkey from the post-military coup period to our days, under the AKP government. It will ask how different actors react in different sectors of society and take sides in the context of neoliberal and authoritarian policies. In terms of methodology, it aims to understand different aspects of social, cultural and economic policies by specific field studies conducted in different cities and policy areas in Turkey. The presenters are encouraged to analyse the impacts of neoliberal policies not only from the institutional and official macro-level but also at the individual and micro-level. By combining “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches, presenters are invited to provide empirical data that clarify how neoliberal and authoritarian policies in Turkey are experienced in different regions, fields and sectors. This panel focusing on the case of Turkey will thus question a number of central concepts in theoretical and methodological debates on precariousness, vulnerability, state repression and social and spatial expression of economic inequality.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANTS

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA326) Isil Erdinc, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

Possibilities of Constructing Healthcare not as a Social but as a Collective Right Melek Zorlu, Ankara University Social Sciences Institute Work Accidents as the Most Afflictive Face of Neoliberalism: The Zonguldak Hard Coal Basin Case Ibrahim Sarikaya, Bogazici University The Neglected Face of Neoliberal Transformation in the Turkish Healthcare System: Reflections of Drug Patents on Pharmaceutical Policies Nazli Bulay Dogan, Koc University

ySession 2 -

yIsil Erdinc, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne yCeren Ark, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne yMuge Neda Altinoklu, Istanbul Bilgi University

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 08

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 08

PUBLIC POLICY IN TURKEY. MULTIPLE FACES OF NEOLIBERAL POLICIES IN TURKEY: INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SECTORIAL APPROACHES, FIELDS AND METHODS

Saturday, July 4th 16.30 - 18.30 (Santa Agnese SA326) Muge Neda Altinoklu, Istanbul Bilgi University Ceren Ark, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

The Interplay of Policy Design and Politics in Shaping Policy Outputs: Comparative Analysis of Social Assistance Programs Implemented in Turkey Duygu Sonat, University of Potsdam Neoliberal Educational Policies after the 1980s in Turkey Aslıhan Zengin, Bogazici University Mahrem Policy and Streets: Gendered Dimension of Public Sphere in contemporary Turkey Ozan Soybakis, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales Rethinking socio-economic and spatial dimensions of Urban Projects as a shift from 1980s to an authoritarian neoliberalism under AKP in Turkey through The Kanal Istanbul Project Ovgu Ulgen, Bogazici University

The treatment of these issues could be divided into three main themes: • A first axis centred on the institutional dimension of the neoliberal policies focusing on state and civil servants. • A second axis based on the economic dimension that offer the study of labour policies and the relation between capital, the businessmen and the state. • A third axis analyzing the cultural and social dimension of public policies in a neoliberal context.

y 326

327 X

y We invite scholars who have employed contemporary theories of

the policy process to guide their analysis of policies designed to enhance urban resilience - e.g. Institutional Development Analysis (IAD) framework, Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), Punctuated Equilibrium (PET), Multiple Streams, Policy Diffusion and Social Construction and Policy Design. Papers should clearly outline the research design, address its usefulness to reliably describe the observed resilience building process, and highlight research gaps in a comprehensive and easily accessible way.

y 328

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

yAntje Witting, University of Konstanz

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G121) Thomas Birkland, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 09

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 09

POLICY PROCESS THEORIES IN URBAN SYSTEMS RESEARCH

Historical Institutionalism Is Rescuing Urban Regime. The Case of Urban Land Use Policies Sebastien Pradella, Centre d’Etudes en Habitat Durable - UCL Mainstreaming Integrated Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in Local Development Plans in the Philippines Ebinezer Florano, Center for Policy and Executive Development Polarized Discourse Networks and Urban Policy Change: The Case of Stuttgart 21 Melanie Nagel, University of Konstanz

329 X

CHAIR

y One of the vexing questions surrounding comparative and historical

ySession 1

analyses of public policy development is not only to accurately describe complex multiple step trajectories, but to explain why particular trajectories occur. While a variety of literatures shed light on these questions, increasing recognition about the role of unpredictable choices made by individuals and organizations, has moved attention away from prediction (or even “post-diction”), and instead around identifying “causal logics” through which choices and policy development might occur. The purpose of this panel is to shed light on understanding better the interaction of agent choices operating within institutional arenas that can, and do, carry implications for the way in which choices at particular junctures might influence policy pathways. This knowledge, in turn, might generate strategic insights for policy-oriented organizations seeking to influence enduring social and environmental challenges.

and Environmental Studies, Yale University

DISCUSSANTS -

-

-

-

-

-

y 330

yBenjamin Cashore, School of Forestry

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G114) Katharina Rietig, De Montfort University Metodi Sotirov, Chair of Forest and Environmental Policy, University of Freiburg

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 10

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 10

LEARNING ABOUT POLICY PATHWAYS

Can Learning Influence Policy Pathways? Integrating Theories of Learning With The Pathways of Influence Framework Steven Bernstein, University of Toronto Benjamin Cashore, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University Jeremy Rayner, University of Saskatchewan How Do Weak States Respond to Transnational Business Governance Influence?: Lessons from the Pathways of Influence Framework on Forest Legality Verification efforts in Southeast Asia Iben Nathan, University of Copenhagen Benjamin Cashore, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University Applying the Multi-level Pathways of Influence Framework to Explain Divergent Approaches to Local Forest Governance: Comparing Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru Vivienne Caballero, Yale University - Governance, Environment and Markets Research Center Benjamin Cashore, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University Sébastien Jodoin, McGill University Chelsea Judy, Yale University Can Transnational Business Governance Influence Domestic Oriented Production Processes?: Application of the Pathways of Influence Framework to Forest Legality Verification in Brazil Gabriela Bueno, University of Massachusetts Boston Benjamin Cashore, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University Can Market Mechanisms Improve Natural Resources Governance in the Global Era? Lessons from the Pathways of Influence Framework Benjamin Cashore, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University Sébastien Jodoin, McGill University Learning Through Policy Pathways: Towards a Practitioner Oriented Protocol Sarah Lupberger, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Benjamin Cashore, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University Sébastien Jodoin, McGill University

331 X

y Many experiences like car sharing, car pooling or bicycle in free access

show that mobility seems to be confronting fundamental changes. These changes benefit from technological innovations (like new phone services), the rise of environmental concerns, a new relationship with time and space which allow individuals to adapt their mobility behaviour. These new possibilities induce huge modifications of how to travel that have a direct effect on public policies. They require new skills and approaches to design the transport system. Those changes point out the need to question public policies on the following topics: How does transport policy integrate aspects like economics, politics, planning, energy, information? How can transport policy be in favor of mobility innovation? How can and does transport policy take into account the local as well as educational particularities of the populations affected by those policies? What kind of tensions arises from the confrontation between new mobility behaviour and traditional public policies? The subject of the present panel proposition is to find answers to these questions.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

-

-

-

y 332

yPatricia Lejoux, LET-ENTPE yNathalie Ortar, ENTPE yStephanie Souche, University of Lyon

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G114) Nathalie Ortar, ENTPE Stephanie Souche, University of Lyon

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 11

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 11

HOW TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT RECENT MOBILITY CHANGES IN TRANSPORT POLICY?

What is happening to cars in urban spaces? Hans Jeekel, Technical University Eindhoven Frank Schipper, Eindhoven University of Technology Martin Emanuel, Eindhoven University of Technology Ruth Oldenziel, Eindhoven University of Technology Implementing bikesharing systems in small cities: evidence from the Swiss experience Ander Audikana, University of Deusto & Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Smart mobility for optimizing sustainable urban mobility : the case of Lyon metropolitan area Nicolas Ovtracht, Transport Economics Laboratory, CNRS & University of Lyon Aurelie Mercier, Transport Economics Laboratory, CNRS & University of Lyon Stephanie SouchE, University of Lyon Yves Crozet, Transport Economics Laboratory, CNRS & University of Lyon The new experience of urban mobility with bike sharing system: The case of Lyon Tien-Dung TRAN, University of Lyon / Nicolas OVTRACHT, Transport Economics Laboratory, CNRS & University of Lyon Bruno Faivre d’Arcier, Transport Economics Laboratory, CNRS & University of Lyon How to enhance the use of multimodal information? Evidence from the Plateau-de-Saclay Sophie Dantan, VEDECOM Julie Bulteau, Université de Versailles St Quentin-en-Yvelines Isabelle Nicolai, Université de Versailles St Quentin-en-Yvelines Instrument replacement versus goal displacement: Assessing a mature instrument coalition’s input to transportation policy adjustment Anthony Perl, Simon Fraser University Matthew Burke, Griffith University

333 X

y This panel invites scholars to focus on different aspects of morali-

ty policy. Policies are commonly referred to as morality policies when conflict over basic beliefs and first principles dominate political disputes and discourses. Typically, policy areas like the regulation of euthanasia, prostitution, abortion, stem-cell research, or sexuality are considered to represent such morality policies. Rather than material concerns, questions relating directly to core beliefs and values are at the heart of regulatory questions policy-makers are confronted with policy decisions in these areas are thus fundamentally concerned with decisions about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that directly touch upon people’s life and their identity. In most Western countries, morality issues have gained increasing importance in recent years. While abortion was the first morality issue to attract broad political attention back in the 1960s, a growing number of issues have since been politicized as morality conflicts. At the same time, this development implies that the regulation of morality issues has been subject to far-reaching changes in many countries. The most prominent examples include the introduction of same-sex union in many Western democracies and regulations defining the conditions for euthanasia, stem-cell research, and assisted reproductive technology (ART). At first glance, these developments suggest that there is a general trend towards more permissive approaches in moral regulation. However, closer examinations reveal that while many countries have addressed these morality issues in recent decades, the actual degree of permissiveness of regulation varies considerably. This panel addresses scholars interested in the sources of variation in the regulation of morality policy issues. How well are common theoretical approaches equipped to account for such variation? What is the role of political parties in this context? And what other political, or societal factors influence varying patterns of morality policy change? This panel welcomes all papers interested in questions of this kind.

CHAIRS

yStephan Heichel, Geschwister-Scholl-Institute of Political Science, LMU Munich

yChristian Adam, University of Munich yChristoph Knill, University of Lyon

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 14.30 - 16.30 (Santa Agnese SA326) Yves Steinebach, LMU München - GSI

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 13

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 13 y 334

ON THE ROAD TO PERMISSIVENESS? ANALYZING PATTERNS OF MORALITY POLICY CHANGE

Legal Mobilization, Courts, and the Medicalization of Life and Death Issues in Canada Christine Rothmayr Allison, Université de Montréal Audrey L’Espérance, University of Toronto, Ethnic minority religious education and partisan politics in Europe I Irina Ciornei, University of BERN Liberalizing reproduction. Does socio-economic and political emancipation drive change in abortion policy? Emma Budde, GSI, LMU Stephan Heichel, Geschwister-Scholl-Institute of Political Science, LMU Munich Patterns of Morality Policy Change in Europe Steffen Hurka, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich Christian Adam, University of Munich Christoph Knill, University of Munich Regulating prostitution and same-sex partnership rights in Europe: Who are the agents of societal minorities? Eva-Maria Euchner, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München Caroline Preidel, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

335 X

CHAIRS

y The design, elaboration, implementation, and evaluation of public

ySession 1

policies is a very complex process. However, all these steps become even more challenging when those policies are oriented towards rebuilding communities, societies, polities, and economies in conflict-affected countries. Armed conflicts aggravate existing public problems and generate new urgent and important matters that once the conflict ends, call for rapid and effective measures in order to promote peacebuilding and prevent the reappearance of violence. Furthermore, transitions from war to peace entail inherent challenges that need to be addressed on a transversal basis along the wide spectrum of public policies.

DISCUSSANT -

yAndres Macias, Universidad Externado de Colombia yCarlos Soto, Universidad Externado de Colombia

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G112) Juan D. Gutierrez-Rodriguez, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 14

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 14

PUBLIC POLICIES IN POST-CONFLICT SCENARIOS

Guidelines for employment creation in a post-conflict scenario in Colombia Carlos Soto, Universidad Externado de Colombia Citizen Security and Social Coexistence in Colombia: A Public Policy Approach in a Post-conflict Scenario Andres Macias, Universidad Externado de Colombia For whom the royalties toll? On the investment of resource revenues in Colombia’s in post-conflict Juan D. Gutierrez-Rodriguez, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University

In this sense, the panel invites junior and senior researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to present a critical reflection regarding questions such as the following: should public policies be distinctive amid post-conflict scenarios and how distinctive should they be? What are the public policy needs (if any) that enable the formulation of successful post-conflict reconstruction initiatives?. The panel welcomes papers that present case-studies, best practices, and theory-driven propositions that include, but are not limited to, topics concerning security, coexistence, restoration of law and order, governance, employment, economic rehabilitation and development, justice, and reconciliation in post-conflict scenarios around the world.

y 336

337 X

CHAIR

HEALTH SYSTEMS IN TRANSITION: PROBLEMATIC POLITICS OF RAISING REVENUE AND DELIVERING HEALTH CARE

y Worldwide there is a wide variety in the mix of public and private

responsibilities for the funding, contracting and provision of health care services across countries and across continents. Variety exists despite similarities in basic policy goals (such as providing access to good quality health care to all residents at reasonable cost, improving the general health of populations, protecting incomes) as well as policy challenges and programmatic change. To complicate matters, borders are not clear between traditional and western medicine, or between formal and informal care. Papers are invited that engage in comparative analysis of selected health care systems (that is, more than one country or else multiple units within one country) and analyse common trends as well as varied strategies and policy outcomes. Special emphasis will be given to the issue of raising revenue through health insurance in comparative contexts – that is between classic OECD concerns versus Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

-

DISCUSSANTS -

-

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G115) Lenaura Lobato, Fluminense Federal University Kieke Okma, Catholic University Leuven; McGill University Montreal

Knowledge Production without Convincing Narratives: Understanding Policy Failures of Addressing Informal Payment in Health Care in Central and Eastern Europe Attila Bartha, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Gábor Erőss, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Bori Fernezelyi, Hungarian Academy of Sciences The Study of Health Care Utilization and Health Status with the Transition of Health Insurance Scheme Xianhua Che, Korea University Haejoo Chung, Korea University Future Directions of Japan’s Healthcare Reform under the Abe Government Toshiyuki Nishikawa, Surugadai University The Impact of Increasing Prescription Drug Prices as a Driver of Global Health Care costs Marian Palley, University of Delaware Shelby Hockenberry, Elite Global Strategy Comparative Analysis and Health Systems: The Landscape of Health Policy in Canada and the U.S. Antonia Maioni, McGill University

ySession 2

y 338

yJim Bjorkman, Institute of Social Studies

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 15

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 15

TOPIC 18 - HEALTH POLICY

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G115) Jeni Vaitsman, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation Ted Marmor, Yale University

Can Insurance Finance India’s Healthcare? Review Of Insurance Based Financing Schemes In India Ankita Mukherjee, Jawaharlal Nehru University Tensions in the decisionmaking processes on public health programs and policies withing the managed competition model of the Colombian health system. Gloria Molina , National School of Public Health, University of Antioquia Financing health care and delivering health care: different post-1989 paths in CEE region Juraj Nemec, Masaryk University Brno Natalia Grigorieva, Lomonosov Moscow State University Tatiana Chubarova, Institute of Economy, Russian Academy of Sciences Impact and Politics of User-Fees Introduction in Three Post-communist Countries: Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic Tamara Popic, European University Institute

339 X

y Advances in technology, science and medicine provide significant op-

portunities and challenges for health policy makers and researchers. The anticipated outcomes of the Human Brain Project, the 100,000 Genomes Project, the Innovative Medicines Initiative and human enhancement technologies are just a few examples of scientific endeavour that health policy must consider. Technological and scientific innovation offers an opportunity to ease the burden of nations’ health care costs but paradoxically these same advances come at a significant price. In addition, the ethical, legal and social implications are potentially profound. What is the state’s role, if any, to consider and resolve these issues? To what extent are health policy makers engaged with scientific and technological advances in crafting health policy? How should the state consider and decide these significant questions – morally, empirically and politically? Effective exploration of these issues requires cross-disciplinary collaboration from the political sciences, science and technology studies, ethics, law, public health, sociology, public administration, economics, the complexity sciences and of course science, technology and medicine.

CHAIR

ySession 1 -

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 10.30 - 12.30 (Gemelli G112)

The Government Will See You Now: Medical Innovation and the Role of the State Penny Gleeson, The University of Melbourne, Pharmaceutical Fiscal Sustainability: Review of Malaysia’s Essential Medicines List Yahaya Hasaan, Universiti Teknologi MARA,Malaysia Integrating Policy Regimes in Health and Technology: The Possibilities and Limits of Procedural Policy Instruments Achim Lang, University of Konstanz

ySession 2 -

yPenny Gleeson, University of Melbourne

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 16

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 16

HEALTH POLICY: IMPLICATIONS OF ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY, SCIENCE AND MEDICINE

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Gemelli G112)

Regulating the use of fertility preservation technologies, from survivor choice to the commodification of family aspirations Shelley Grant, Queen Mary University of London From e-Health Policies to the 2.0 Doctor-Patient Relationship Cynthia Slomian, Université de Liège Medication Dispensing Service Quality: Innovation towards Patient-centred Care Azlan Ahmad, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia Yahaya Hasaan, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia Nur Liyana Zainal Bahrin, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia Publics’ Perceptive on Buying the Unregistered Drugs: Constant Comparative Method Noorizan Abd Aziz, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia Nur Liyana Zainal Bahrin, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

Papers are invited from these and other relevant disciplines for the following three sessions of this Panel: 1. The policy and politics of anticipating and responding to new technological, scientific and medical innovations for health policy. 2. The ethical challenges of technological, scientific and medical innovations for health policy. 3. Access by, and the role of, developing nations in technological, scientific and medical advances for health care. Each session will run for two hours. Four to five papers will be presented per session.

y 340

341 X

y Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has become a central feature

of policy-making in health systems across the globe over the past two decades. This multidisciplinary activity promises to reduce inefficiency and waste, and to facilitate more rational decision-making on health system coverage, thus enhancing sustainability. However, the nature of its intersection with the policy process remains problematic and relatively poorly understood. Moreover, since HTA impacts directly or indirectly on allocative decision-making in health systems, it frequently generates significant controversy, thus undermining attempts by policy-makers to utilise the activity as a means of depoliticising hard choices in healthcare. This panel seeks to provide a platform for the critical analysis of HTA’s relationship to policy-making and papers are invited on this theme. Consistent with the multidisciplinary nature of HTA as an activity, contributions may come from a broad range of perspectives, including (but not restricted to): economics, ethics, health policy, law, philosophy, political science/ theory and sociology. The panel will explore both the theory and the practice of HTA and papers which consider the operation of HTA in low and middle-income countries and/or which take a comparative approach are especially welcome. • • • • • • • •

CHAIR

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

yKeith Syrett, Cardiff University

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Lanzone VL1-02/G135) Keith Syrett, Fluminense Federal University Wija Oortwijn, Ecorys

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 17

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 17

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN PUBLIC POLICY: PROMISE AND PITFALLS

Decision rules for allocation of finances to Health Systems Strengthening Alec Morton, University of Strathclyde Ranjeeta Thomas, Imperial College Peter Smith, Imperial College HTA and legal norms: consonance or dissonance? Keith Syrett, Cardiff University Moving towards a fairer process of HTA Wija Oortwijn, Ecorys NICE’s threshold and the ethics of ignoring opportunity cost. Kalipso Chalkidou, NICE (international)

Possible topics might include: HTA and the courts The democratic legitimacy of HTA decision-making HTA at supranational level Institutional and process design for HTA Participation in HTA Inclusion of ‘social values’ in HTA HTA decisional criteria and the goals of health systems

However, please note that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and papers on any topic at the intersection of HTA and public policy will be considered for inclusion in the panel.

y 342

343 X

y The BRICS countries,- Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -

which have more than 40% of the world population and 30% of the Gross National Product have been establishing cooperation in economic, financial, infra-structure, and social areas, including health. A central goal of health cooperation between these countries is the strengthening of their health systems and the reduction of health inequalities. Despite social, economic, cultural and demographic differences between BRICS countries, they face many similar challenges in the health area. Inequality in the access to health services and medicines, the costs of services and products, and the lack of human resources are some of these challenges. The panel aims to discuss innovations and reforms introduced in these countries to address these issues.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

yJeni Vaitsman, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation yHanna Kociemska, University of Economics in Wroclaw

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Lanzone VL2-05/G251) Tatiana Chubarova, Institute of Economy, Russian Academy of Sciences Jim Bjorkman, Institute of Social Studies

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 18

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 18 y 344

POLICY INNOVATIONS TO REDUCE HEALTH INEQUALITIES IN THE BRICS COUNTRIES

Access to health care for diverse and diversifying populations in India and South Africa Kieke Okma, Catholic University Leuven; McGill University Montreal Charl Swart, University of the Western Cape Radhika Arora, Independent consultant The ‘Brazilian model’ and the role of health policy Lenaura Lobato, Fluminense Federal University Jeni Vaitsman, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation Public-private partnership as a solution for the development of the health care system in East Cape Province, SA Hanna Kociemska, University of Economics in Wroclaw Target-based policies in Russian health care: a case of modernisation programme Tatiana Chubarova, Institute of Economy, Russian Academy of Sciences Natalia Grigorieva, Lomonosov Moscow State University

345 X

y The management of modern health policy is arguably paradigmatic of

the “wicked problems” states increasingly confront: uncertainty permeates the definition of the problem, identification of its causes, and strategies for its improvement. Jurisdictions are autonomous yet interdependent; the field is technologically complex yet essential to individuals at a most basic level; clinical knowledge and practices change extraordinarily rapidly, yet administrative structures must be stable, predictable, and reliable. The cost of health care continues to rise even as economies struggle with fiscal austerity. In response to the growing contradictions of public administration, theorists have turned to conceptions of governance that are based more broadly upon a lateral institutional structure focusing upon networks, partnerships, and the engagement of other social actors. They have also focused upon “softer” policy instruments that rely more upon discussion, negotiation, exhortation, and justification over harder, more punitive mechanisms. Yet the “governance turn” has itself led to claims that governments have become “hollowed out” by destroying the very instruments that are vital for steering complex policy fields. Others have argued that the proliferation of lateral governance has in fact led to a governance regime that is more, rather than less, hierarchical. This panel discusses these themes of contemporary governance through the analytical lens of health policy. What happens to health care at the granular level when the “governance turn” intersects with the politics of fiscal consolidation? What particular kinds of institutional structures and policy instruments have been utilized, with what kind of results? To what extent do we really have any ability actively to control or direct health policy at all? And how should we conceptualize democratic governance and public accountability within the increasingly complex and diffuse sphere of health policy?

y 346

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL2-05/G251) Holly Jarman, University of Michigan

Social Insurance in the 21st century: The Centralization of Political Responsibility in Austrian and German Healthcare Governance Margitta Mätzke, Johannes-Kepler-University Linz Re-knotting health care governance under financial pressure: a case study on evolving decentralized mechanisms of Japanese health system Ryozo Matsuda, Ritsumeikan University Shifting terrain of health policy: Devolved modes of regional governance Mary Wiktorowicz, York University From “social democracy” to state steering in Bismarckian Health Insurances Louise Lartigot-Hervier, Sciences Po Paris - LIEPP The Virtues of Old Public Governance: Reinstating the “hard budgetary constraint” in the Norwegian Health Care sector Trond Tjerbo, University of Oslo Terje P. Hagen, University of Oslo

ySession 2 -

yKatherine Fierlbeck, Dalhousie University yScott Greer, University of Michigan

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 19

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 19

FRAGMENTATION OR METAGOVERNANCE? THE FUTURE OF HEALTH CARE

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Via Lanzone VL2-05/G251) Margitta Mätzke, Johannes-Kepler-University Linz

Trade policymaking and health systems: redistribution and territory in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Holly Jarman, University of Michigan Governing Health Care Service Delivery and Diversity: Canada and Turkey Lloy Wylie, Western University Saime Ozcurumez, Bilkent University New Regional Economic Agreements and the Governance of Health Care Reform Mark Crawford, Athabasca University Understanding multilevel governance processes in a publicly funded healthcare system Nassera Touati, ENAP Lara Maillet, ENAP Marie-Andree Paquette, Ecole nationale d’administration publique (ENAP) Charo Rodriguez, McGill University The Role of the Courts in the Governance of Health Care: Lessons from the Canadian Experience Antonia Maioni, McGill University

347 X

y The outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa is a stark reminder of

the critical importance of public health infrastructure and that providing this infrastructure is a major challenge of governance. Therefore, learning the lessons from the 2014 outbreak of the Ebola virus requires the insights not only of public health but also of political science. The premise of this panel is that the uncontrolled spread and impact of the Ebola virus is the result of a failure in local, regional, national and global governance (Fidler 2014). Therefore, we invite papers that analyse the Ebola outbreak using the theoretical insights of political science. Examples of how this might be done include: • Comparative and case study papers that draw on theories of development, failed states, and comparative politics more generally to try and explain the inability of countries to mount an effective response. • Papers that draw on theories of global governance and international organization to offer insight into the role of the World Health Organization and other international bodies that mobilized to respond to the crisis. • Papers that draw on social science research on the role of non-states actors in global governance to better understand the role of Médecins sans frontières, the Gates Foundation, and many others in the management of the Ebola crisis. • Theoretically informed papers that analyse the politics within donor countries as actors within, non-governmental organizations, and others used a variety of strategies and tactics to put the Ebola crisis on the agenda, mobilize action and push for an effective response.

CHAIR

yPatrick Fafard, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Lanzone VL2-04/G253) Patrick Fafard, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 20

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 20

LEARNING LESSONS FROM EBOLA: POLICY MAKING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

“The ISIS of Biological Agents:” Media Coverage of Ebola and Political Responses Mark Daku, Montreal Health Equity Research Consortium Kim Yi Dionne, Smith College Ebola in the USA: Partisan politics, health system fragmentation, and multilevel governance in comparative perspective Scott Greer, University of Michigan Working together to ‘kick out Ebola’: the politics of governance and social mobilisation in Liberia Kirsty McLaren, The Australian National University Adrian Kay, The Australian National University Action and Inaction: Comparing the World Health Organization’s Response to H1N1 and Ebola Sudeepa Abeysinghe, University of Edinbugh

This is by no means an exhaustive list and we invite papers that apply other theoretical and conceptual tools from political science in order to better understand the 2014 Ebola outbreak and how we might prevent similar crises in the future.

y 348

349 X

y “So long as researchers presume that research findings must be brou-

ght to bear upon a single event, a discrete act of decision making, they will be missing those circumstances and processes where, in fact, research can be useful” (Rist 1994). Twenty years later in their 2014 systematic review of evidence-based policy Oliver, Lorenc & Innvær (2014) conclude that lack of significant advance in understanding whether evidence improves policy has occurred because the “agenda of ‘ getting evidence into policy’ has side-lined the empirical description and analysis of how research and policy actually interact in vivo”. This panel will address this gap by presenting empirical studies of the interactions between research, policy and practice in health and health equity. It will bring together researchers and policy-makers who work on diverse health problems, in various national and international contexts, and from different disciplinary perspectives. It will highlight successful mechanisms to support these interactions and will contribute to the development of models of co-production that lead to better policy.

CHAIRS

ySession 2 DISCUSSANTS -

-

-

-

DISCUSSANTS

DISCUSSANTS -

-

y 350

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL2-04/G253) Vivian Lin, World Health Organization Nicholas King, McGill University

Researchers, Campaigners and Corporations: Who is trying to influence policy responses to health inequalities in the UK and what role is evidence playing in these debates? Katherine Smith, University of Edinburgh, How do people link evidence and policy? a comparative study of activities, strategies and networks Kathryn Oliver, University College London, The problem with the ‘getting evidence into policy’ agenda: lessons from the interaction between malaria treatment research, policy and practice at the global level Bianca DSouza, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine LSHTM, Lost (or Gained) in Translation: Considering the representation of uncertainty in the presentation of empirical findings in WHO policy statements. Tarik Benmarhnia, Institute for Health and Social Policy, McGill University Jonathan Huang, McGill University Scientific evidence, politics and law: The case of hospital minimum volumes in Germany Stefanie Ettelt, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

-

-

-

Friday, July 3rd 10:45 – 12:45 (Via Lanzone VL2-04/G2523) Margaret Kelaher, University of Melbourne Daniel Weinstock, McGill University

The value of evidence: Investigating the use of empirical evidence in health and social equity-promoting policies in a variety of contexts (U.S., Canada, and the U.K.) Jonathan Huang, McGill University Zinzi Bailey, McGill University - Institute for Health and Social Policy & Montreal Health Equity Research Consortium Philippa Bird, McGill University Mark Daku, Montreal Health Equity Research Consortium, Perspectives from Indigenous Elders’ Lenses: macro construction of induced displacement of Indigenous elders Myrle Ballard, University of Manitoba Donna Martin, University of Manitoba, LEADing the way: Enhancing the use of research in anti-racism policy Angeline Ferdinand, University of Melbourne Yin Paradies, Deakin University Margaret Kelaher, University of Melbourne A framework for evaluating agreement making and its effectiveness for the health and well being of Australian Indigenous communities in mining regions Kieran Knight, University of Melbourne

ySession 3 y Session 1

yMargaret Kelaher, University of Melbourne yDaniel Weinstock, McGill University

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 21

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 21

FROM EVIDENCE TO POLICY AND BACK AGAIN: THE EVIDENCE-HEALTH POLICY PRAXIS

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL2-04/G253) Volker Amelung, Medical University Hannover Daniel Weinstock, McGill University

Media Coverage of Sick Leave Policies in the United States Mark Daku, Montreal Health Equity Research Consortium, Evidence and Policy in Pharmaceutical Regulation: A comparative study of orphan drug policy and regulatory practice in Canada and the European Union Katherine Fierlbeck, Dalhousie University Matthew Herder, Dalhousie University, The use of research in making public health policy decisions: A case study from New York City Zinzi Bailey, McGill University - Institute for Health and Social Policy Montreal Health Equity Research Consortium Research evidence – a “one stop shop” for policy makers? Camille La Brooy, The University of Melbourne Margaret Kelaher, University of Melbourne The Nexus - and how political theory doesn’t do the trick Evelyne de Leeuw, La Trobe University

351 X

y Rising costs in secondary care, together with falling total health expenditures, challenge the long-term sustainability of national health systems. Therefore, there is a call for both policy makers and healthcare providers to put forward and implement a redesign of the health system aimed at fostering a shift in healthcare provision from secondary to primary care. In this context, local health agencies, or local health providers, should play an active role in the choice of an effective model of primary care, which is able to both improve the outcome of the health service provided and contain health costs. The panel will welcome papers focusing on the following topics: 1. Assessment of the effectiveness of extant primary care models. Regional and international comparative analysis. 2. Value-based analysis of the shift in health and social care provision from secondary to primary care. 3. Assessment of different business models and business structures for the delivery of primary care. Best-practices and work in progress. 4. Leadership in local health agencies and local health providers. Challenges and opportunities. 5. Reimbursement and incentive models for primary and social health service. Comparison between volume and quality based models.

y 352

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

yDemartini Maria Chiara, Università degli Studi di Pavia ySimon Gregory, Cambridge University

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL1-03/G151) Martin Roland, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 22

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 22

NEW MODELS IN PRIMARY CARE. AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON

Improvements in care co-ordination of chronic patients associated with a new primary care payment system in Lombardy: updated results of the CreG (Chronic Related Group) model. Antonella Fait, DG Salute - Regione Lombardia (and AO Luigi Sacco Hospital) Mauro Agnello, DG Salute - Regione Lombardia Carlo Alberto Scirè, Italian Society For Rheumatology Luca Merlino, DG Salute - Regione Lombardia Qualifications in primary health and care services; responses and strategies in Norwegian municipalities Marit Kristine Helgesen, Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research Torunn Kvinge, NIBR Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research Trond Tjerbo, University of Oslo Reinventing the “cottage hospital”: Did implementation of municipal acute bed units reduce the demand for hospital admissions? Terje P. Hagen, University of Oslo Jayson O. Swanson, University of Oslo

353 X

CHAIR

yEvren Tok, HBKU

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY POLICIES AND NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE

y This panel will look at the private sector actors and their historical

contribution to improving political and economic governance, as well as to capacity-building in natural resources management in comparative perspective. It will evaluate those areas where the private sector fails to bring about improvements in political and economic governance, and instead might hamper development. Various papers in the panel will contribute to the debate around private sector engagement in natural resources management in the past, present and future. It will look at, not only mining and mineral resources, but will also include land and water, which received minimal coverage in the preliminary literature review findings. Finally, the panel will contribute to the understanding of the role of the private sector in conflict and post-conflict settings, particularly in terms of its contribution to natural resources governance and CSR policies. This remains an under-studied field of research, and much could be gained from comparing and evaluating the different roles that the private sector has played in natural resources governance.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G114) Evren Tok, HBKU

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 23

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 23 y 354

TOPIC 18 - ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

A Multilevel Explanatory Model of CSR Performance Orr Karassin, Open University of Israel Questioning the benign benevolence of mining companies’ CSR: Australian cases Sara Bice, The University of Melbourne Mining in Peru & Local Governance: Assessing the Contribution of CSR Projects Sandra Carrillo, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú Green Growth through Green Grabbing? A case of second largest hydropower dam construction in Georgia Nino Makatsaria, SEAF Georgia China and the Exploitation of Natural Resources: Sovereignty or International Concern? Paolo Davide Farah, West Virginia University How to create a system of relationship about the extraction oil in Arctic region between large corporations, NGO’s and civil society to build a “pareto optimal” of this system Andrey Kirillov, Higher School of Economics (Moscow) Ksenia Gerasimova, University of Cambridge

355 X

y Water and sanitation services often fall under public scrutiny. Issues

related to effectiveness, efficiency, fairness and affordability of water charges, environmental protection and preservation, quality of service delivery, and conflict over alternative uses of scarce water resources – especially in the context of rapid urbanization and increasing agricultural activity – call for a dedicated effort from the side of public policy-makers to devise and implement effective regulatory systems. Yet, while the need for regulation of the water sector is widely acknowledged, less consensus exists on how exactly water and sanitation services should be regulated. This panel builds on the belief that regulation of water and sanitation services could be improved if greater attention is placed on the relationships between designing water regulation, evaluating present regulatory systems, and drawing lessons from actual regulatory regimes and their performance under particular historical and institutional settings. Accordingly, contributions to this panel are expected to investigate:

CHAIRS

yDaniele Russolillo, Fondazione per l’Ambiente Turin School of Local Regulation

yMaria Salvetti, FSR - Sorbonne Business School yAlberto Asquer, FSR - Sorbonne Business School

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

-

Wednesday, July 1st 14.00 - 16.00 (Santa Agnese SA326) Carolina Latorre, The International Water Association (IWA)

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 24

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 24

REGULATORY POLICY FOR WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES: DESIGN, EVALUATION, AND POLICY LEARNING

Re-evaluating regulators in developing countries: lessons from the economic regulation of water in Manila Olivia Jensen, National University of Singapore LKY School of Public Policy Knowing the FIELD for water regulation at local level: actors, information, incentives Franco Becchis, Fondazione per l’Ambiente / Turin School of Local Regulation Elisa Vanin, Fondazione per l’Ambiente / Turin School of Local Regulation Daniele Russolillo, Fondazione per l’Ambiente / Turin School of Local Regulation Beyond regulation: Policy instruments for enabling stormwater best management practices for municipal water services Eva Lieberherr, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Olivia Green, Atlantic States Legal Foundation Governance Models and Partnerships in the Urban Water Sector Cor Van Montfort, Tilburg University Consumption-based water charges and public water regulators’ equity concerns - an empirical evaluation of alternative tariff structures for Flemish households Josefine Vanhille, Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp NGO’s role in solving transboundary water conflicts (the case of Central Asian countries) Elena Korotkova, National Research University Higher School of Economics Ksenia Gerasimova, Cambridge

1. what are the principles that inform a successful and effective design of water regulation, how we can identify the actors and stakeholders relevant to the design, evaluate their information endowment, their incentives and the relationships between them 2. how features of the regulatory design help in overcoming such issues as information asymmetries, regulatory capture, and underor over-investment; 3. how we can assess the performance of established regulatory regimes and what accounts for differential performance between alternative regulatory regimes; and 4. how policy-makers can learn from regulatory experiences and adjust the regulatory systems accordingly. If successful, the panel may result in original contributions to establish linkages between related parts of the regulatory policy cycle that are often subjected to specialised analytical attention only.

y 356

357 X

y The panel takes stock of the implementation issues of green fiscal

reforms (GFR) as a public policy approach to reduce environmental externalities, increase employment, stimulate technological and social innovation, and help fiscal consolidation at the macro scale (countries, economic regions). A specific focus is the possible employment effects of GFR and their interactions with employment policies. Papers will address these issues at the national or supranational level, with a specific attention to the barriers and opportunities emerging in the policy-making process. Specific topics will be the following: • • • • • • • •

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

yRoberto Zoboli, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore yAldo Ravazzi Douvan, Italian MoE - OECD - U.Luiss

Wednesday, July 1st 16.15 - 18.15 (Gemelli G121) Massimiliano Mazzanti, University of Ferrara & SEEDS

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 25

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 25

GREEN FISCAL REFORMS AND EMPLOYMENT POLICIES

Implementing environmental fiscal reform in Europe Paul Ekins, University College London Institute for Sustainable Resources Mitigation of employment impacts under unilateral carbon taxation schemes in Scandinavian countries Mikael Skou ANDERSEN, Aarhus University Environmental fiscal reform and transition to a green economy – a political economy analysis Stefan Speck, European Environment Agency World Trade Organization and Subsidies in the Renewable Energy Sector: The Case of the Feed-in-Tariffs Paolo Davide Farah, West Virginia University

Macro-economic and macro-social implications of GFR Fiscal consolidation and GFR Expected employment effects of GFR and employment policies Institutional and policy-making barriers to merging GFR and employment policies Equity and income-distribution issues of GFR, in particular for households Economic, environmental and employment benefits from GFR Industrial stakeholders, lobbying and the policy-making process of GFR GFR and technological, organisational, and social innovation

Papers may encompass different disciplinary perspectives, from economics to political and social sciences, and may present results emerging from different knowledge experiences, from academic research to policy-making advisory at the international and national level. A desirable attribute of the papers is the combination of analytical rigour and easy communicability of results to decision makers.

y 358

359 X

CHAIRS

GOVERNANCE OF KNOWLEDGE POLICIES

y The governance of knowledge – generation, organisation, or disse-

mination – has now permeated all policy levels, from the local, national, and regional to the global. These processes, however, are studied across diverse disciplines – science and higher education (policy) studies, international relations, comparative politics, sociology and organisational studies – often disconnected from one another. This is surprising given that there are at least three clear research foci they have in common. At the level of (i) discourse and ideas, attention is paid to whether, how, and why concepts such as excellence, globalism and regionalism, innovation, to name but a few, percolate into daily practices and how they are then woven into the fabric of policies, organisations or systems. Similarly, these disciplines have in common their interests in how the dynamics of higher education, research and science have impacted (ii) the central organisations, i.e. universities and non-university research institutes, as well as the funding and regulatory agencies. Finally, there is also clear shared research interest in how such dynamics have affected (iii) groups and individuals as members of these organisations, e.g. asking whether and how the normalisation of universities or their global differentiation/isomorphism clash with the normative foundations of science as a profession/vocation or, even earlier, with the hitherto humanistic ideals of ‘socialising’ students by education. This panel invites researchers from across diverse disciplines to examine the multi-level governance of knowledge policies and politics, focusing on any of the above-mentioned dynamics as well as the role of actors in influencing them. Submitted papers should be clearly linked to one of the three sections – each addressing one of the three research foci identified. All accepted papers must have a clear conceptual approach, preferably supported by empirical examples beyond a single case study.

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

DISCUSSANTS

-

-

y 360

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G134) Mitchell Young, Charles University in Prague Meng Hsuan Chou, Nanyang Technological University

Breakthroughs and excellence: between science and economy Mitchell Young, Charles University in Prague / Mads P. Sørensen, Aarhus University, Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy Carter Bloch, Aarhus University A multi-level approach to the European Research Area: equal competition among unequal states, national research systems, universities and research groups Tatiana Fumasoli, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo Åse Gornitzka, University of Oslo / Benjamin Leruth, University of Kent The translation of partisan preferences to policies in proactive and reactive policy making - The role of political parties in higher education policy Jens Jungblut, University of Oslo, Department of Education

ySession 3 -

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G134) Tatiana Fumasoli, ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo Jens Jungblut, University of Oslo, Department of Education

Organisation and performance of scientific research in Flanders (1989-2014): policies, actors, strategies. Walter Ysebaert, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Free University of Brussels) The idea of ‘higher education regionalism’: comparing Europe and Asia Pauline Ravinet, Université Lille 2 / Meng Hsuan Chou, Nanyang Technological University With | Out A Partner Richard Naegler, University of Hamburg Governance of Knowledge Policies: the role of consultants and consultancy Helen Gunter, University of Manchester

ySession 2 -

yJens Jungblut, University of Oslo, Department of Education yMeng Hsuan Chou, Nanyang Technological University yPauline Ravinet, Université Lille 2

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 27

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 27

TOPIC 18 - EDUCATION POLICY

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Gemelli G134) Mitchell Young, Charles University in Prague Pauline Ravinet, Université Lille 2

How academic quality concepts and evaluation impact on the internal governance of University departments: a move to different governance level? Emilia Primeri, IRCRES CNR Emanuela Reale, IRCRES CNR Academic promotion in Spain: the consequences of decentralized, centralized and accreditation systems Luis Sanz-Menendez, CSIC Institute of Public Goods and Policies / Manuel Pereira-Puga, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) / Alberto Benitez-Amado, CSIC Institute of Public Goods and Policies Laura Cruz-Castro, CSIC Institute of Public Goods and Policies The politics of excellence Thomas Koenig, IHS

361 X

y Around Europe, higher education systems are currently subject to

profound changes. Various socio-economic challenges, in particular the emergence of the knowledge society, demographic developments, sluggish economic growth, and increased competitive pressures, have stimulated an array of reforms to contemporary higher education systems. In view of convergence-promoting processes such as the Bologna Process and the spread of New Public Management, domestic HE institutions are increasingly subject to competing visions of how university systems and institutions of higher education should be governed. We call for papers which address the tensions between pressures for change and historical legacies in higher education. The panel aims to advance the state of research on higher education governance on three fronts. First, participants are encouraged to develop systematic indicators to measure the degree and direction of policy change, e.g. regarding the institutional balance of power, funding, and personnel matters. For example, to what extent have higher education institutions become “marketized” and in what areas? How does current policy output match up with the historical foundations of higher education systems? Second, the panel aims to isolate factors driving policy change. Moving beyond the conventional assumption that Europeanization is the main catalyst, participants are encouraged to shed light on new underresearched explanatory factors, e.g. the financial crisis, rankings and domestic/international policy borrowing, student activism, or isomorphic pressures from supranational policy agendas. Third, the panel gives participants the opportunity to empirically trace such developments in country comparisons or “crucial case studies”, while focusing on the transformed role of the state and new forms of governmental intervention. Papers will provide an analytical contribution by developing indicators of policy change, potentially with reference to previous classifications.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

Thursday, July 2nd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA223) Christoph Knill, University of Munich

Transformation of Policy Instruments for University Quality Assurance and Its Impact on Higher Education Governance Chuo-Chun Hsieh, National Dong Hwa University Human Resources Management in Higher Education: the influence of the policies of regions on hiring and promotion policies at universities Luis Sanz-Menendez, CSIC Institute of Public Goods and Policies Alberto Benitez-Amado, CSIC Institute of Public Goods and Policies Laura Cruz-Castro, CSIC Institute of Public Goods and Policies Manuel Pereira-Puga, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) Between Rationalized Myths: Higher Education Governance in Poland in the Eyes of Policy Elites Marta Shaw, Jagiellonian University Higher Education Funding Reform in Italy: Introducing ‘standard cost per student’ Davide Donina, University of Pavia and University of Bergamo Mattia Cattaneo, University of Bergamo Michele Meoli, University of Bergamo Stefano Paleari, University of Bergamo

ySession 2 -

yMichael Dobbins, Goethe University of Frankfurt yMarta Shaw, Jagiellonian University

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 28

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 28 y 362

HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE BETWEEN HISTORICAL ROOTS AND TRANSNATIONAL CONVERGENCE PRESSURES

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA223) Christoph Knill, University of Munich

Between Liberal Ambitions and Social-democratic Concerns: What Type of Social Model Does the EU Promote in the Field of Higher Education? Elissaveta Radulova, Maastricht University Gina Di Maio, Maastricht University Human capital and nationality. Developing policies for higher education in the region of CEE Mikołaj Firlej, University of Warsaw | Collegium Invisibile Mergers and Alliances: Restructuring Irish Higher Education Siobhán Harkin, Maynooth University Exploring reforms in educational governance in Europe Claudia Christ, University of Tübingen

363 X

WORLD INEQUALITY AND PUBLIC POLICY: WHAT DO WE KNOW AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE

y In late 1980s the world started to witness a rapid growth of inequality

in most countries, which has been greatly fueled by deepening globalization, widening liberalization and widespread transitions in former socialist countries. The rapidly rising level of inequality has become a major concern of governments, as it has exerted adverse economic and social effects on societies and led to instability. Therefore, understanding inequality, its moving pattern, growing trajectory and functioning mechanism is essential not only for scholars, but also for policymakers. Due to the uneven consequences of the recent global financial crisis, inequality has once again aroused considerable interest in both intellectual circles and the policymaking arena. The panel welcomes review and research articles to address theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues arising from inequality studies at global, regional, and national level. In particular, we welcome papers with a special focus on analyzing the inequality pattern during the financial crisis. The need for a better understanding of relations between the policies implemented and changes in inequalities, together with tools allowing policy makers to see the impact of their decisions is urgent. By focusing on different aspects of relations between policies, inequality, financial instability, and labor markets, this panel is complementary in providing resources for more adequate policy response to the changing pattern of inequality in different social and political contexts.

y 364

CHAIRS

ySession 1 -

-

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Santa Agnese SA015)

Income Inequality in Advanced Welfare States Beatrice Halbach, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin James Galbraith, The University of Texas at Austin Inequality in Poland 1989-2012, as compared to other Central and Eastern European countries Aleksandra Malinowska, University of Texas Austin Wenjie Zhang, The University of Texas at Austin Has China Crossed Kuznets’ Threshold? – A Snapshot of China’s Pay Inequality from 1987 to 2012 Wenjie Zhang, The University of Texas at Austin The indecent standard of living for the elite at the expense of the poor the reality of the patrimonial “justice”. Boris Kashnikov, National Research University Higher School of Economics

ySession 2 -

yWenjie Zhang, GThe University of Texas at Austin yLuigi Pasinetti, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore yJames Galbraith, The University of Texas at Austin

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 29

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 29

TOPIC 18 - SOCIAL POLICY

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Santa Agnese SA015)

The impact of the economic crisis on the labour market participation and income inequality of senior workers Carmen Petrovici, dr, LIS Cross-National Data Center Falling behind or catching up? Cross-country evidence in intra-generational wages mobility through pseudo panels Marco Lilla, LIS Inequality in Latin American during the rise and fall of Neoliberalism Maria Delfina Rossi, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin James Galbraith, The University of Texas at Austin Beatrice Halbach, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin

365 X

CHAIR

yErnesto Savona, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

PREVENTING THE INFILTRATION OF ORGANIZED CRIME INTO THE LEGITIMATE ECONOMY, BETWEEN RESEARCH CHALLENGES AND POLICY TOOLS

y Organised crime groups infiltrate into legitimate businesses in different ways with the aim of fulfilling a number of objectives including laundering of illicit proceeds, controlling the territory and the political elite, increasing profits, dismantling competitors and increasing the social consensus. In terms of public policy, there is the need to design more efficient policy tools to prevent and control these criminal phenomena. These include, for example, more precise measures to assess the risk of infiltration, money laundering and corruption across areas and processes, more effective regulation to recover criminal assets and a range of tools to successfully reintroduce confiscated assets back in the legitimate economy. Submissions discussing these issues from different academic perspectives (criminology, sociology, political economy, law) are welcome.

ySession 1 -

-

-

-

Saturday, July 4th 8.30 - 10.30 (Gemelli G113)

From analysis to risk assessment: rating the risk of criminal infiltration to increase prevention Diana Camerini, Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Michele Riccardi, Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Stefano Caneppele, Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore The risks and rewards of OC investments in Real Estate Serena Favarin, Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Luca Giommoni,Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Marco Dugato, Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore The infiltration of organised crime in legitimate businesses: evidence from European countries Giulia Berlusconi, Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Federica Sarno, Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Cristina Soriani, Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Priscilla Standridge, Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore An administrative approach to (organised) crime in Europe Maaike Peters, Catholic University Leuven Dirk Van Daele, Instituut voor Strafrecht - LINC, Catholic University Leuven Toine Spapens, Tilburg University

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 31

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 31 y 366

TOPIC 18 - SECURITY

367 X

y The panel on policing and security explores new challenges for poli-

cy-making and accountability in the field of policing and internal security. Beyond the “classic” conflict between security and civil liberties, a number of new challenges have made policy-making in this field more complex in recent years: Firstly, new security threats, especially those perceived after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Secondly, fast technological developments have changed societies’ communication habits and , the economy’s dependence upon communication channels, and consequently, also changed the operational fields and methods of the police and other security agencies. In reaction to newly perceived threats, even democratic countries have established technical capacities for surveillance that conflict with the limited role that states have customarily played in rule of law systems. Established boundaries between policy fields and the related public actors have been questioned by this process. This is especially true between internal and external security (police and military) as well as between the functions of police agencies and secret services. In parallel, policing and security tasks are becoming more diverse. Private security companies have developed to important actors in many countries, contributing to a “pluralisation of policing”. Digitalisation and new methods of surveillance have witnessed a decisive move forward. Prevention has become a core task, complementing the classic repressive functions of police and other security agencies. The aim of the panel is to open a forum for the discussion and exchange of empirical findings, theoretical arguments and methodological tools for the analysis of policy-making and accountability in the field of policing and internal security policy. Trans-disciplinary approaches and contributions taking a trans-border comparative perspective are most welcome in order to develop new approaches to comparative research into policing and security.

CHAIRS

ySession 1 DISCUSSANT -

DISCUSSANT

-

DISCUSSANT

-

-

y 368

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Via Lanzone VL0-01/G053) Raphael Bossong, Europe University Viadrina

European border control: The political influence of private security companies Sophia Hunger, University of Copenhagen/ Department of Political Science Regulating the field of private investigation within private security companies in Denmark Trine Thygesen Vendius, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen Power Games between the Governorate and the Police Department: A Theoretical and Methodological View at the Studies on the Control over the Police Elites Ozdinc Gizemnur, Université Pierre Mendès France Conceptualizing the Security Roles of Private Businesses within the EU Oldrich Bures, Metropolitan University Prague

ySession 3 -

Friday, July 3rd 8.30 - 10.30 (Via Lanzone VL0-01/G053) Oldrich Bures, Metropolitan University Prague

Legitimacy and confidence in public safety institutions: the case of São Paulo André Zanetic, Center for the Study of Violence Policing bodies and the inter-institutional governance of organised crime in Chile Carlos Solar, University of York Justice of violence or violence of justice Boris Kashnikov, National Research University Higher School of Economics Protecting the Rights of Suspects in an International Environment: Successes and Failures of Cross-Border Police Cooperation Saskia Hufnagel, Queen Mary University of London Agenda setters and promoters of accountability? Reactions to scandals produced by security agencies Hartmut Aden, Berlin School of Economics and Law

ySession 2 -

yHartmut Aden, Berlin School of Economics and Law yJasmin Röllgen, Universität der Bundeswehr München yOldrich Bures, Metropolitan University Prague

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 32

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 32

POLICING AND SECURITY: NEW CHALLENGES FOR POLICY-MAKING AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Friday, July 3rd 16.45 - 18.45 (Via Lanzone VL0-01/G053) Hartmut Aden, Berlin School of Economics and Law

A pluralizing tool for a pluralizing notion: the Governance of Policing as a framework to approach domestic security in Burundi Gilles Biaumet, Université Saint-Louis The strategic use of political time Jasmin Röllgen, Universität der Bundeswehr München Political influence in the changing field of internal security A pragmatism based theoretical framework Tobias John, University of Münster Digital Crisis Management in Practice: The Role of Social Media during the German Flood Disaster of 2013 Wiebke Drews, University of the Bundeswehr in Munich / Andreas Jager, University of the Bundeswehr Munich / Kristina Kurze, Universität der Bundeswehr München Developing a European Crime indicator Mathias Bug, German Institute for Economis Research DIW Berlin

369 X

y This panel aims at the analysis of public policies devoted to the

regeneration of urban areas in crisis. It proposes an analysis of practical experiences based on the Urban Development Model. Traditionally, the analysis of these policies has focused on the specific case study, focusing on specific areas or cities. The aim of this panel is to analyse cases from the point of view of the European integrated urban development model. Practical and theoretical papers will be welcome, addressing the following issues: 1. Analysis of the proliferation of initiatives for sustainable integrated urban development since 2007 in Europe. As several publications report, since 2007, European countries have assumed the notion of integration at na¬tional and local level, implementing integrated development strategies more frequently. This is partly due to the requirements imposed by the EU subsidies policy (Berg, Braun y Meer, 2004; BMVNS, 2012; Marshall, 2004; Atkinson and Rossignolo, 2009). 2. In the framework of the European urban development model promoted from by the EU, there are recommendations about policies content. In recent years, a large number of European cities have promoted public intervention programmes in areas of social, economic, and urban deterioration. These programmes, introduce scaled actions characterised by their response to different demands and various functions. Hence, the new way of tackling intervention in the urban space is not limited just to the transformation of their physical space, but also includes what could be termed a social, economic, and cultural dimension (Bianchini & Parkinson, 1993). 3. This urban development model also assumes that such an approach tries to respond to the problem of how to govern and manage the fragmentation in urban settings and how to promote development in inherently complex environments facilitating: a) inclusion (policy issues and actors); b) coordination (structures, processes and resources) and c) effectiveness / efficiency (outcomes) (Farinós, 2008; Zamora and Merinero, 2012; Aparicio and di Nanni, 2011, González (2011).

y 370

CHAIRS

yMaria Angeles Huete García, Universidad Pablo de Olavide yMoneyba González Medina, University Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla

ySession 1 DISCUSSANTS -

-

Friday, July 3rd 10.45 - 12.45 (Via Lanzone VL1-03/G151) Maria Angeles Huete García, Universidad Pablo de Olavide Moneyba González Medina, University Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 34

TOPIC 18 - PANEL 34

URBAN REGENERATION POLICIES IN EUROPE: THEORY AND PRACTICE

Urban regeneration policies: notes on the translation of European discourse in Spain Ángela Matesanz Parellada, Technical University of Madrid María Castrillo, Universidad de Valladolid The territorial base of Integrated Urban Regeneration policies Miriam Alonso Naveiro, Universidad de Oviedo Miriam Alonso Naveiro, Universidad de Oviedo Rosario Alonso, Universidad de Oviedo Comparing integrated urban regeneration in France and the United Stated: i is there a European model versus an American one? Clement Boisseuil, SciencesPo Paris Urban regeneration policy in Serbia- three case studies from Belgrade. Snežana Djordjević, Faculty of Political Sciences

371 X

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

y 372

373 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

A Aagaard

Peter

[email protected]

Roskilde University

Denmark

Abdikyerim

Jansulu

[email protected]

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, NUS

Singapore

Abeysinghe

Sudeepa

[email protected]

University of Edinburgh

UK

Aboribo

Richard

[email protected]

Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria

Nigeria

Abrucio

Fernando

[email protected]

Fundação Getúlio Vargas

Brazil

Acuto

Michele

[email protected]

University College London

UK

Adam

Christian

[email protected] University of Munich

Germany

Aden

Hartmut

[email protected]

Germany

Berlin School of Economics and Law

Ågren

Robert

[email protected]

Lund University

Sweden

Aguilera

Thomas

[email protected]

Sciences Po Paris

France

Ahn

Jaehung

[email protected]

Ajou University

South Korea

Ainsaar

Mare

[email protected]

University of Tartu

Estonia

Akkoyunlu

Karabekir

[email protected]

University of Graz

Austria

Alain

Izquierdo

[email protected]

Universidad de Guadalajara

Mexico

Alcantara

Christopher

[email protected]

Wilfrid Laurier University

Canada

Alexandra

Kononova

[email protected]

Higher School of Economics

Russia

Alimi

Deborah

[email protected]

Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

France

Alirani

Gertrud

[email protected]

department of social science

Sweden

Almeida

Wellington

[email protected]

Universidade de Brasília - UNB

Brazil

Alonso Naveiro

Miriam

[email protected]

Universidad de Oviedo

Spain

Altinoklu

Muge Neda

[email protected]

Istanbul Bilgi University

Turkey

Amelung

Volker

[email protected]

Medical University Hannover

Denmark

Amri

Mulya

[email protected]

National University of Singapore

Singapore

An

Miyoung

[email protected]

Kookmin University

South Korea

Andersen

Mikael Skou

[email protected]

Aarhus University

Denmark

Andersen

Andersson

Vibeke Normann [email protected]

Lisa

[email protected]

and Re-gional Government Research

Denmark

Dept. of social work, Stockholm University

Suede

Fabio

[email protected]

Getulio Vargas Foundation

Brazil

Anessi Pessina

Eugenio

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

Olga

[email protected]

Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague

y 374

First Name

Email

Institution

Czech Rep.

Anna

Semenova

[email protected]

Higher School of Economics

Russia

Anne-Cécile

Douillet

[email protected]

Université de Lille / CERAPS

France

Country

Antó

Anna

[email protected]

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona UAB

Spain

Anufriev

Alexander

[email protected]

Higher School of Economics

Russia

Araral

Eduardo

[email protected]

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

Singapore

Araújo

Rafael

[email protected]

PUC-SP/FESPSP

Brazil

Arellano-Gault

David

[email protected]

Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas - CIDE

Mexico

Argentin

Gianluca

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

Argibay

Camilo

[email protected]

Université de Lyon

France

Ark

Ceren

[email protected]

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

France

Arnason

Lara

[email protected]

University of Edinburgh

UK Canada

Arthur

Claire

[email protected]

Retired

Arthur

Megan

[email protected]

WORLD Policy Analysis Center, University of California, Los Angeles

USA UK

Asquer

Alberto

[email protected]

SOAS, University of London

Assadi

Anahita

[email protected]

Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy

Sweden

Aubin

David

[email protected]

Université catholique de Louvain

Belgium

Audikana

Ander

[email protected]

University of Deusto & Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Auer

Aykut

Alexander

[email protected]

Spain

WU Vienna University of Economics and Business

Austria

Stefan

[email protected]

LATTS / LISIS

France

Baber

Walter

[email protected]

California State University, Long Beach

USA

Bäckstrand

Karin

[email protected]

B

KORA - The Danish Inst. for Local

Andrade

Angelovská

Name

Badia

Francesco

[email protected]

Department of Political Science, Stockholm University

Sweden

University of Ferrara

Italy

Baekkeskov

Erik

[email protected]

University of Copenhagen

Denmark

Bailey

Zinzi

[email protected]

McGill University

Canada

Bajakic

Ivana

[email protected]

Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb

Croatia

Baketa

Nikola

[email protected]

Faculty of Political Science, Zagreb

Croatia

Bakir

Caner

[email protected]

Koc University

Turkey

Baldwin

Elizabeth

[email protected]

Indiana University

USA

Bali

Azad Singh

[email protected]

National University of Singapore

Singapore

Ballard

Myrle

[email protected]

University of Manitoba

Canada

375 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Bandelow

Nils C.

[email protected]

Institute for Social Sciences,

Bandera

Sabrina

[email protected]

Bang

Henrik Paul

Banks

Andrea

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Bérard

Jean

[email protected]

Université de Montréal

Canada

Beretta

Simona

[email protected]

università Cattolica del Cacro Cuore

Italy

University of Braunschweig

Germany

Beretta

Ilaria

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Berger

Marco

[email protected]

University of Guadalajara

Mexico

[email protected]

IGPA

Australia

Berlusconi

Giulia

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Transcrime Italy

[email protected]

Simon Fraser University

Canada

Bernardo

Zacka

[email protected]

Christ’s College, University of Cambridge

UK

Barani

Luca

[email protected]

Haute Ecole de Bruxelles

Belgium

Bernier

Luc

[email protected]

ENAP

Canada

Barca

Fabrizio

[email protected]

Ministry of Economy and Finance

Italy

Bernstein

Steven

[email protected]

University of Toronto

Canada

Bertillot

Hugo

[email protected]

Baris

Omer

[email protected]

Nazarbayev University

Kazakhstan

Barrass

Susan

[email protected]

Ryerson University

Canada

Barrett

Rae

[email protected]

Central Michigan University

USA

Bevir

Mark

[email protected]

University of California, Berkeley

USA

Barrett

Patrick

[email protected]

The University of Waikato

New Zealand

Bherer

Laurence

[email protected]

Université de Montréal

Canada

Bartels

Koen

[email protected]

Bangor University

UK

Biancalana

Cecilia

[email protected]

Università degli studi di Torino

Italy

Bartha

Attila

[email protected]

Centre for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Centre de Sociologie des Organisations (Sciences Po)

France

Bianchi

Davide Gianluca [email protected] Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Hungary

Bianchi

Maddalena

[email protected] Éupolis Lombardia

Italy Belgium

Bartlett

Robert

[email protected]

University of Vermont

USA

Biard

Benjamin

[email protected]

Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL)

Baru

Rama

[email protected]

Jawaharlal Nehru University

India

Bias

Thomas

[email protected]

West Virginia University Department

Baskakova

Yulia

[email protected]

academy of science

Russia

Biaumet

Gilles

[email protected]

Institute of sociology, Russian

of Health Policy

USA

Université Saint-Louis

Belgium

Bassani

Gaia Viviana

[email protected]

University of Bergamo

Italy

Bice

Sara

[email protected]

The University of Melbourne

Australia

Bassini

Marco

[email protected]

University of Verona

Italy

Bick

Etta

[email protected]

Ariel University

Israel

Bassoli

Matteo

[email protected]

eCampus Online University

Italy

Biegelbauer

Peter

[email protected]

AIT Austrian Institute of Technology

Austria

Baumhardt

Virginia

[email protected]

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul

Brazil

Biesbroek

Robbert

[email protected]

Wageningen University

Netherlands

Behnke

Nathalie

[email protected]

Universität Konstanz

Germany

Birkland

Thomas

[email protected]

NC State University

USA

Bel

Germà

[email protected]

University of Barcelona

Spain

Biswas

Niloy

[email protected]

City University London

UK

Bélanger

Marie-Eve

[email protected]

University of Geneva/ETH Zurich

Switzerland

Bjorkman

Jim

[email protected]

Institute of Social Studies

Netherlands

Belchior

Ana

[email protected]

ISCTE-IUL

Portugal

Blatrix

Cécile

[email protected]

AgroParisTech

France

Bellon

Anne

[email protected]

University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne

France

Blatter

Joachim

[email protected]

University of Lucerne

Switzerland

Belyaeva

Nina

[email protected]

Higher School of Economics

Russia

Blomquist

Bill

[email protected]

IUPUI

USA

Benbouzid

Bilel

[email protected]

LATTS-LISIS

France

Blomqvist

Paula

[email protected]

Dept of Government

Sweden

Benmarhnia

Tarik

[email protected]

Blum

Sonja

[email protected]

KU Leuven, Public Governance Institute

Belgium

Canada

Bobbio

Luigi

[email protected]

University of Turin

Italy

Boda

Zsolt

[email protected]

Institute for Health and Social Policy McGill University

Benoit

y 376

Country

Cyril

[email protected]

Sciences Po Bordeaux The University of Sheffield

France

Centre for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Hungary

Benoit

Cecilia

[email protected]

University of Victoria

Canada

Boecher

Michael

[email protected]

University Goettingen

Germany

Ben-Porat

Guy

[email protected]

Ben-Gurion University

Israel

Boisseuil

Clement

[email protected]

Sciences Po Paris

France

377 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Bolin

Niklas

[email protected]

Mid Sweden University

Sweden

Burer

Mary Jean

[email protected]

EPFL

Switzerland

Bolukbasi

H. Tolga

[email protected]

Bilkent University

Turkey

Bures

Oldrich

[email protected]

Metropolitan University Prague

Czech Rep.

Boni

Alice Selene

[email protected]

Eupolis Lombardia

Italy

Burgess-Pinto

Elizabeth

[email protected]

MacEwan University

Canada

Boon

Jan

[email protected]

University of Antwerp

Belgium

Burns

John P.

[email protected]

The University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Bordos

Katalin

[email protected]

Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis

Hungary

Burns

Sarah

[email protected]

University Goettingen

Germany

Borges de Souza

Zilma

[email protected]

Getulio Vargas Foundation

Burykin

Dmitriy

[email protected]

National Research University

Bornemann

Basil

[email protected]

Bouckaert

Geert

[email protected]

Bozina Beros

Marta

[email protected]

Universitè Paris Dauphine

Brazil

Higher School of Economics

Russia

University of Basel, Sustainability Science

Switzerland

Busetti

Simone

[email protected]

Politecnico di Milano

Italy

KU Leuven Public Governance Institute

Belgium

Byers

Vivienne

[email protected]

Dublin Institute of Technology

Ireland

Juraj Dobrila University of Pula

Croatia

Brandon

william

[email protected]

University of North Carolina Charlotte

USA

C

Brans

Marleen

[email protected]

KU Leuven Public Governance Institute

Belgium

Caby

Vincent

[email protected]

Centre Emile Durkheim

Brasil

Felipe

[email protected]

Federal University of São Carlos

Brazil Cada

Karel

[email protected]

Institute of Sociological Studies,

Braun

Kathrin

[email protected]

Institute for Political Science University Hanover

Germany

(CNRS / Sciences Po Bordeaux)

Fernanda Natasha [email protected]

University of Brasília (UnB)

Brazil

Brazova

Vera-Karin

Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

Caiani

Manuela

[email protected]

France

Faculty of Social Sciences,

Bravo Cruz

Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

[email protected]

SNS-Florence

Italy

Breeman

Gerard

[email protected]

Leiden University Campus The Hague

Netherlands

Cairney

Paul

[email protected]

University of Stirling

UK

Brenton

Scott

[email protected]

University of Melbourne

Australia

Calderaro

Andrea

[email protected]

European University Institute

Italy

Bressers

Daphne

[email protected]

Netherlands School of Public Governance

Netherlands

Calmon

Paulo

[email protected]

Universidade de Brasília

Brazil

Breunig

Christian

[email protected]

University of Konstanz

Germany

Camerini

Diana

[email protected]

Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore - Transcrime Italy

Bright

Jonathan

[email protected]

Oxford Internet Institute

UK

Candel

Jeroen

[email protected]

Wageningen University

Broadbent

Jeffrey

[email protected]

University of Minnesota

USA

Caneppele

Stefano

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Transcrime Italy

Netherlands

Brock

Kathy

[email protected]

Queen’s University

Canada

Capano

Giliberto

[email protected]

Scuola normale superiore

Italy

Brogaard

Lena

[email protected]

Roskilde University

Denmark

Cardozo

Nelson

[email protected]

Universidad de Buenos Aires

Argentina

Brouwer

Stijn

[email protected]

KWR Watercycle Research Institute

Netherlands

Carmona

Rodrigo

[email protected]

Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento Argentina

Brudney

Jeffrey

[email protected]

University of North Carolina Wilmington

USA

Carniti

Elena

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Buchs

Milena

[email protected]

University of Southampton

UK

Carriere

Real

[email protected]

Ryerson University

Canada

Buchwalter

Andrew

[email protected]

University of North Florida

USA

Carrillo

Sandra

[email protected]

Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú

Peru

Budde

Emma

[email protected]

GSI, LMU

Germany

Carroll

John J.

[email protected]

Nova Southeastern University

USA

Switzerland

Carroll

Marla

[email protected]

Nova Southeastern University

USA

Carroll

John

[email protected]

Nova Southeastern University

USA

Carroll

Toby

[email protected]

City University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Cashore

Benjamin

[email protected]

School of Forestry and Environmental

Cassen

Christophe

[email protected]

Buffat

Aurélien

[email protected]

University of Lausanne

Bug

Mathias

[email protected]

German Institute for Economis

Buisson-Fenet

Hélène

[email protected]

Bungay

Victoria

[email protected]

Research DIW Berlin

y 378

Name

Germany

National Center of scientific research (CNRS) - Ecole Normale Supérieure of Lyon

France

University of British Columbia

Canada

Studies, Yale University

USA

CIRED

France

379 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Castelnovo

Walter

[email protected]

University of Insubria

Italy

Chung

Haejoo

[email protected]

Korea University

South Korea

Ciornei

Irina

[email protected]

University of BERN

Switzerland USA

Castro-Arce

Karina

[email protected]

University of Groningen, Faculty

Cisneros

Paul

[email protected]

University of California, Davis

of Spatial Sciences

Netherlands

Clifton

Judith

[email protected]

University of Cantabria and Cornell University Spain

Caswell

Dorte

[email protected]

Aalborg University

Denmark

Cocci

Manuela

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Catellani

Patrizia

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

Coenen

Frans

[email protected]

University of Twente

Netherlands

Cathelin

Cécile

[email protected]

Laboratoire Triangle (Lyon2) et CIRAD

France

Coffey

Brian

[email protected]

Deakin University

Australia

Cattaneo

Cristiana

[email protected]

University of Bergamo

Italy

Cohen

Nissim

[email protected]

University of Haifa

Israel

Cattivelli

Valentina

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Colebatch

Hal

[email protected]

UNSW Australia

Australia

Caune

Hélène

[email protected]

Università degli studi di Milano

Italy

Collazzo

Pablo

[email protected]

WU-Vienna University of Economics

Austria

Cejudo

Guillermo

[email protected]

Graduate School of Public Policy

Cerny

Philip G

Collins

Neil

[email protected]

y Docencia Económicas - CIDE

Centro de Investigación Mexico

Colombo

Alessandro

[email protected] Éupolis Lombardia

[email protected]

University of Manchester

UK

Coman

Ramona

[email protected]

Mary

[email protected]

Ceron

Andrea

[email protected]

Università degli Studi di Milano

Italy

Chadwick

Kim

[email protected]

Emerald Group Publishing

UK

Condon

Kazakhstan Italy

Université libre de Bruxelles, Institute for European Studies

Belgium

Osgoode Hall Law School, York University

Canada

Chailleux

Sebastien

[email protected]

Sciences Po Bordeaux

France

Connaughton

Bernadette

[email protected]

University of Limerick

Ireland

Chalkidou

Kalipso

[email protected]

NICE (international)

UK

Correa

Izabela

[email protected]

LSE

UK

Challies

Edward

[email protected]

Leuphana University Lüneburg

Germany

Costa

Jacopo

[email protected]

University of Turin

Italy

Chan

Kay-Wah

[email protected]

Macquarie University

Australia

Costie

Daniel

[email protected]

University of Colorado - Denver

USA

Chao

Chien-min

[email protected]

Chaqués Bonafont Laura

[email protected]

Che

Xianhua

[email protected]

Chen

Wenbo

[email protected]

Chen

Julie Yu-Wen

[email protected]

Chiarello

Liz

[email protected]

The Graduate Institute of Sun Yat-sen

Courmont

Antoine

[email protected]

Sciences Po

France

Thoughts and Mainland China Studies,

Craft

Jonathan

[email protected]

University of Toronto

Canada

the Chinese Culture University

Taiwan

Crawford

Mark

[email protected]

Athabasca University

Canada

University of Barcelona and IBEI

Spain

Cruz-Castro

Laura

[email protected]

CSIC Institute of Public Goods and Policies

Spain

Kroea University

South Korea

Cruz-Rubio

Cesar Nicandro [email protected]

University of Hull

UK

Graduate School of Public Policy,

Curtin

Jennifer

Czub

phd Jarosław Filip [email protected]

[email protected]

GIGAPP. Research Group in Government, Administration and Public Policy

Spain

University of Auckland

New Zealand

Nazarbayev University

Kazakhstan

Saint Louis University

USA

Faculty of Journalism and Political Science,

Institute of European Studies,

University of Warsaw

Poland

Fundação Getúlio Vargas

Brazil Austria

Chiesa

Cecilia

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Choi

Jaehee

[email protected]

University of Texas at Austin

USA

Chou

Meng Hsuan

[email protected]

Nanyang Technological University

Singapore

D

Christ

Claudia

[email protected]

University of Tübingen

Germany

Da Graça

Christians

Allison

[email protected]

McGill University

Canada

Dahlvik

Julia

[email protected]

University of Vienna

Christiansen

Peter Munk

[email protected]

University of Aarhus

Denmark

Daku

Mark

[email protected]

Montreal Health Equity Research Consortium Canada

Chubarova

Tatiana

[email protected]

Dallara

Cristina

[email protected]

National Research Council of Italy (IRSIG-CNR) Italy

Institute of Economy, Russian Academy of Sciences

y 380

Country

Luis Felipe

[email protected]

Russia

381 X

Name

First Name

Email

Damonte

Alessia

[email protected]

Institution Dept. Social and Political Sciences Università degli Studi di Milano

Italy

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Dockendorff

Andres

[email protected]

Universidad Central de Chile

Chile

Dodek

Adam

[email protected]

Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Canada

Dangy

Louise

[email protected]

Sciences Po Lyon

France

Dodge

Jennifer

[email protected]

Rockefeller College/University at Albany

USA

Daniel

Benamouzig

[email protected]

CNRS / Sciences Po (CSO-LIEPP)

France

Dogan

Nazli Bulay

[email protected]

Koc University

Turkey

Dantan

Sophie

[email protected]

VEDECOM

France

Doherty

Jane

[email protected]

Daugbjerg

Carsten

[email protected]

Crawford School, Australian

Daviter

Falk

[email protected]

De Coninck

Isabelle

[email protected]

School of Public Health, University of the Witwatersrand

South Africa UK

National University

Australia

Dolowitz

David

[email protected]

University of Liverpool

University of Potsdam

Germany

Donadelli

Flavia

[email protected]

London School of Economics and Political Science

UK

Belgium

Donaldson

Jim

[email protected]

Australian National University

Australia Italy

Public Governance Institute University Leuven

de la Peña

Alberto

[email protected]

University of the Basque Country

Spain

Donati

Niccolò

[email protected]

University of Milan

de Leeuw

Evelyne

[email protected]

La Trobe University

Australia

Donina

Davide

[email protected]

University of Pavia and

De Luca

Alberta

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

University of Bergamo Dorsch

Marcel

[email protected]

Italy

De Marco

Marco

[email protected]

Uninettuno

Italy

De Peuter

Bart

[email protected]

KU Leuven Public Governance Institute

Belgium

De Souza Rocha Lukic Melina

[email protected]

Fundação Getúlio Vargas - Direito Rio

Brazil

Dotti

Dekker

Rianne

[email protected]

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Netherlands

Douglas

Del Bo

Chiara

[email protected]

Università degli Studi di Milano

Italy

Drews

Wiebke

Del Castillo

Gloria

[email protected]

Facultad Latinoamericana

Drumond

Alexandre Matos [email protected]

Mexico

DSouza

Bianca

Delcour

Laure

[email protected]

Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme France

Dugato

Marco

Delpeuch

Thierry

[email protected]

CNRS

Germany

Duggan

Niall

[email protected]

Department of Government

Ireland

Demortain

David

[email protected]

INRA

France

Duhant

Valentine

[email protected]

Université Libre de Bruxelles, GERME

Belgium

de Ciencias Sociales

y 382

Country

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)

Germany

Nicola Francesco [email protected]

Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Belgium

Jenny

[email protected]

The Open University

UK

[email protected]

University of the Bundeswehr in Munich

Germany

CEFET/RJ

Brazil

[email protected]

LSHTM

UK

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Transcrime Italy

Dente

Bruno

[email protected]

Politecnico di Milano

Italy

Dümig

Kathrin

[email protected] University of Heidelberg

Depaoli

Paolo

[email protected]

LUISS “Guido Carli” University, Rome, Italy

Italy

Dumoulin

Laurence

[email protected]

Germany

National center for scientific research CNRS France

Déplaude

Marc-Olivier

[email protected]

INRA

France

Dunlop

Claire

[email protected]

University of Exeter

UK

Dery

David

[email protected]

Hebrew Univeristy of Jerusalem

Israel

Dupuy

Claire

[email protected]

University of Grenoble

France

Devlin

Richard

[email protected]

Dalhousie University

Canada

Durnova

Anna

[email protected]

Department of Political Science

Di Giulio

Marco

[email protected]

University of Bologna

Italy

Dussauge

Mauricio

[email protected]

Department of Political and Social Sciences

University of Vienna

Di Maio

Gina

[email protected]

Maastricht University

Netherlands

DI Matteo

Francesca

[email protected]

EHESS, Marseille

Italy

Djindjic

Milos

[email protected]

European Policy Centre - CEP

Serbia

E

Djordjevi?

Sne?ana

[email protected]

Faculty of Political Sciences

Croatia

Eberli

Daniela

[email protected]

Dobbins

Michael

[email protected]

Goethe University of Frankfurt

Germany

Ebinger

Falk

Dobrowolsky

Alexandra

[email protected]

Saint Mary’s University

Canada

Eccleston

Richard

Austria

Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas - CIDE

Spain

Institut für Politikwissenschaft

Switzerland

[email protected]

Universität Konstanz

Germany

[email protected]

University of Tasmania

Australia

383 X

Name

First Name

Email

Eckert

Sandra

[email protected]

Institution

Country

Germany Nigeria

[email protected]

University of Benin

Edwards

Arthur

[email protected]

Dept. Public Administration, Netherlands

Edwards

David

[email protected]

University of Texas at Austin

USA

Eftekhari Rad

Zahra

[email protected]

kingston university

UK

Ehnert

Franziska

[email protected]

University of Potsdam

Germany

Eichbaum

Chris

[email protected]

Victoria University of Wellington, NZ

New Zealand

Eimer

Thomas

[email protected]

Radboud University Nijmegen

Netherlands

Eisenmann

Thomas

[email protected]

University of Braunschweig

Germany

Eisler

Dale

[email protected]

University of Regina, John Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy

Canada

Wesleyan University

USA

Eisner

Marc

[email protected]

Ekardt

Felix

[email protected] Research Unit Sustainability

Ekins

Paul

[email protected]

for Sustainable Resources

UK Australia

Ainsley

[email protected]

University of Sydney

Elken

Mari

[email protected]

NIFU - Nordic Institute for Studies

[email protected]

Belgium

University College London Institute

Elbra

on Innovation, Research and Education

Norway

West Virginia University

USA

Eller

Warren

Emamian

Seyed M. Sadegh [email protected]

Edinburgh University

UK

Emmendoerfer

Magnus

[email protected]

Universidade Federal de Viçosa

Brazil

Engeli

Isabelle

[email protected]

University of Ottawa

Canada

Eross

Gábor

[email protected]

Centre for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Hungary

Erdinc

Isil

[email protected]

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

France

Ertugal

Ebru

[email protected]

Baskent University

Turkey

Ettelt

Stefanie

[email protected]

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Email

Institution

Marco

[email protected]

Research Institute on Judicial Systems,

Country

National Research Council of Italy (IRSIG-CNR) Fafard

Erasmus University Rotterdam

and Climate Policy

y 384

Fabri

Institute for Political Science Omoregie

First Name

F

Goethe-University Frankfurt, Department of Social Sciences,

Edoba

Name

Patrick

[email protected]

Italy

Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Fait

Antonella

[email protected]

DG Salute - Regione Lombardia (and Hospital Luigi Sacco)

Fang

Mei Lan

[email protected]

Canada

Italy

Gerontology Research Centre, Simon Fraser University

Canada

Farah

Paolo Davide

[email protected]

West Virginia University

USA

Farsund

Arild

[email protected]

University of Stavanger

Norway Italy

Favarin

Serena

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Fawcett

Paul

[email protected]

Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis Australia

Fazzini

Olga

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy Ireland

Feeney

Sharon

[email protected]

Dublin Institute of Technology

Feindt

Peter

[email protected]

Wageningen University and Research Centre Netherlands

Ferdinand

Angeline

[email protected]

University of Melbourne

Australia

Fernandes

Antonio Sergio

[email protected]

Federal University of Bahia

Brazil

Ferrario

Stefania

[email protected]

Liuc- Università Carlo Cattaneo

Italy

Ferreira do Vale

Helder

[email protected]

Hankuk University

South Korea

Ferreira Filho

Jose

[email protected]

Chatolic University of Pernambuco

Brazil

Ferris

Shawna

[email protected]

University of Manitoba

Canada

Fierlbeck

Katherine

[email protected]

Dalhousie University

Canada

Firlej

Mikołaj

[email protected]

University of Warsaw | Collegium Invisibile

Poland

Fischer

Frank

[email protected]

Rutgers University

USA

Fischer

Manuel

[email protected]

Eawag

Switzerland

Flachsland

Christian

[email protected]

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)

Germany USA

Flack

Maggie

[email protected]

San Diego City College

Fleig

Andreas

[email protected]

Department of Political Science, University of Heidelberg

Germany

Flexor

Georges

[email protected]

UFRRJ

Brazil

UK

Euchner

Eva-Maria

[email protected]

Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München

Germany

Eule

Tobias

[email protected]

University of Bern

Switzerland

Evans

Tony

[email protected]

Royal Holloway Univeristy of London

UK

Evans

Bryan

[email protected]

Ryerson University

Canada

385 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Florano

Ebinezer

[email protected]

Center for Policy and Executive Development Philippines

Galvin

Katie

[email protected]

California State University, Stanislaus

USA

Fobé

Ellen

[email protected]

KU Leuven Public Governance Institute

Garcea

Joseph

[email protected]

University of Saskatchewan

Canada

Font

Joan

[email protected]

Institute of Advanced Social Studies

Belgium

Garcia

Enrique

[email protected] Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico

Mexico

(IESA-CSIC)

Spain

Garcia Calderón

Luis Antonio

[email protected]

Mexico

INAP

Fontaine

Guillaume

[email protected]

FLACSO

Ecuador

García Calderón

Carola

[email protected]

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Mexico

Fortané

Nicolas

[email protected]

INRA

France

Garcia-Murillo

Martha

[email protected]

Syracuse University

USA

Fossi

Laura

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Gardner

Alison

[email protected]

University of Nottingham

UK

Fouilleux

Eve

[email protected]

CNRS/CIRAD/University of Montpellier

France

Garon

Francis

[email protected]

Glendon College / York University

Canada

Gasior

Katrin

[email protected]

Franchino

Fabio

[email protected]

Università degli Studi di Milano

Italy

Frey

Klaus

[email protected]

Universidade Federal do ABC

Brazil

European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research

Austria

Frezza

Emanuele

[email protected]

University of Potsdam

Germany

Gates

Pamela

[email protected]

Central Michigan University

USA

Friedman

Yoav

[email protected]

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Israel

Gaus

Alexander

[email protected]

University of Potsdam

Germany

Frische

Anna Katharina [email protected]

Gawthorpe

Steven

[email protected]

Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

Fronzaglia

Mauricio

Helmut-Schmidt-University / University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg

Gay

lauriane

[email protected]

Montpellier 1

France

Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences

Gay

Guido

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Department of Public Administration

Germany

Gehrke

Anne-Marie

[email protected]

Hamburg University of applied science

Germany

[email protected]

Mackenzie Presbyterian University

Brazil

Gelb

Joyce

[email protected]

CUNY NY

USA

Hong Kong

Gentili

Giovanni

[email protected]

University of Milan

Italy

Gerasimova

Ksenia

[email protected]

Cambridge University

UK

Fu

King-wa

[email protected]

The University of Hong Kong

Fuentes

Guillermo

[email protected]

Instituto de Ciencia Política, Universidad de la República

Uruguay

Geregorio

Daniela

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Fugini

Mariagrazia

[email protected]

Politecnico di Milano

Italy

Geva-May

Iris

[email protected]

Baruch College

USA

Fumasoli

Tatiana

[email protected]

Germany

ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo

Norway

G

Giessen

Lukas

[email protected]

University Goettingen

Giest

Sarah

[email protected]

Leiden University, Institute

Gintova

Maria

[email protected]

Giorgia

Nesti

[email protected]

Gago

Angie

[email protected]

University of Milan

Italy

Gains

Francesca

[email protected]

University of Manchester

UK

Gaitsch

Myriam

[email protected]

Dept. of Political Science,

Galanti

Maria Tullia

[email protected]

Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan

Italy

Givone

Federica

Galbraith

James

[email protected]

The University of Texas at Austin

USA

Gizemnur

Ozdinc

Australia

Gleeson Gleeson

University of Vienna

y 386

Name

Gale

Fred

[email protected]

University of Tasmania

Galina

Anastasia

[email protected]

National Research University

Galkin

Philipp

[email protected]

of Public Administration

Netherlands

Ryerson University

Canada

Department of Political Science, Law and International Studies University of Padova

Austria

Giusti

Jessica

[email protected]

Italy

Institute for Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness - LIUC

Italy

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

[email protected]

Université Pierre Mendès France

France

Kate

[email protected]

Macquarie Law School

Australia

Penny

[email protected]

The University of Melbourne

Australia

Higher School of Economics

Russia

Gloria

Marie J. Kristine [email protected]

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

USA

KAPSARC

Saudi Arabia

Goetz

Klaus H

University of Munich

Germany

[email protected]

387 X

Name

First Name

Email [email protected]

Goh

Young-gon

Gollata

Judith A. Marie [email protected]

Gomes

Sandra

[email protected]

Institution

Country

Name

First Name

Email

Korea University

South Korea

Guisset

Anne

[email protected]

Université Saint-Louis

Leuphana University Lüneburg

Germany

Gullberg

Anne Therese

[email protected]

CICERO - Center for International Climate

do Norte (UFRN)

Brazil

Gunter

Helen

[email protected]

Federal University of Rio Grande

Country Belgium

and Environmental Research Oslo

Norway

University of Manchester

UK

González Ledesma

Miguel Alejandro [email protected]

Scuola Normale di Pisa

Italy

Gupta

Akhil

[email protected]

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) USA

González-Capitel

Jaime

[email protected]

Georgetown University

USA

Gupta

Kuhika

[email protected]

University of Oklahoma

USA

Gordon

Daisley

[email protected]

Independent Business Proprietor

USA

Gurcan

Ayse Ezgi

[email protected]

Mercator-IPC / Sabanci University

Turkey

Gorianova

Elena

[email protected]

University of Sussex

UK

Gutierrez-Rodriguez Juan D.

[email protected]

Blavatnik School of Government,

Gottems

Leila

[email protected]

Oxford University

UK

do Distrito Federal - Brasil

Brazil

Gyory

Adrienn

[email protected]

Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis

Hungary

EPPI-Centre, UCL, London

UK

Magdaléna

[email protected]

Escola Superior de Ciências da Saúde

Gough

David

[email protected]

Gouglas

Athanassios

[email protected] KU Leuven Public Governance Institute

Belgium

H

Gouws

Amanda

[email protected]

South Africa

Hadjiisky

University of Stellenbosch

Gräbener

Josua

[email protected]

IEP Grenoble, Laboratoire Pacte

France

Gradus

Raymond

[email protected]

VU University Amsterdam

Netherlands

gramaglia

christelle

[email protected]

IRSTEA

France

Grant

Shelley

[email protected]

Queen Mary University of London

USA

Université de Strasbourg & Sociétés, acteurs et gouvernement en Europe, CNRS

France

Hadorn

Susanne

[email protected]

Center of competence for public management, University of Bern

Switzerland

Hagen

Terje P.

[email protected]

University of Oslo

Norway Australia

Gray

Clive

[email protected]

University of Warwick

UK

Haigh

Yvonne

[email protected]

Murdoch University

Graziano

Paolo Roberto

[email protected]

Bocconi University

Italy

Halbach

Beatrice

[email protected]

Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs,

Greer

Alan

[email protected]

University of the West of England

UK

Greer

Scott

[email protected]

University of Michigan

USA

Halligan

John

[email protected]

The University of Texas at Austin

USA

University of Canberra

Australia

Gregory

Simon

[email protected]

Cambridge University

UK

Halpern

Charlotte

[email protected]

Sciences Po Centre d’Etudes Européennes

France

Greve

Carsten

[email protected]

Copenhagen Business School

Denmark

Hamer

Jessica

[email protected]

Oxfam

UK

Grigorieva

Natalia

[email protected]

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Russia

Hanschmann

Raffael

[email protected]

Potsdam University

Germany

Grin

John

[email protected]

University of Amsterdam

Netherlands

Haque

Kazi

[email protected]

ActionAid Bangladesh

Bangladesh

Grin

Eduardo

[email protected]

Fundação Getúlio Vargas

Brazil

Harkin

Siobhán

[email protected]

Maynooth University

Ireland

Gritsenko

Daria

[email protected]

Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki

Finland

Harrison

Trevor

[email protected]

University of Lethbridge

Canada

Grossman

Seth A.

[email protected]

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,

Harrits

Gitte Sommer

[email protected]

Aarhus University, Department

Guemes

Cecilia

[email protected]

Hartley

Kris

[email protected]

Hassenteufel

Patrick

[email protected]

Haussman

Melissa

Hawkins

Benjamin

Hazakis

Konstantinos

[email protected]

School of Public Affairs & Administration

Guerra Tomazini

Carla

[email protected]

of Political Science

USA

Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales (CEPC)

Singapore

University of Versailles

France

[email protected]

Carleton University

Canada

[email protected]

London School of Hygiene

de Recherche et de Documentation France

Denmark

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

Spain

Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3, IHEAL/Centre

sur les Amériques (CREDA)

y 388

Institution

and Tropical Medicine

UK

Democritus University of Thrace

Greece

389 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Head

Brian

[email protected]

University of Queensland

Australia

Hsieh

Chuo-Chun

[email protected]

National Dong Hwa University

Taiwan

Hedbavny

Petr

[email protected]

Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

Huang

Jonathan

[email protected]

McGill University

Canada

Heiber

Rafael

[email protected]

Common Action Forum

Spain

Huete García

Maria Angeles

[email protected]

Universidad Pablo de Olavide

Spain

Heichel

Stephan

[email protected] Geschwister-Scholl-Institute of

Hufnagel

Saskia

[email protected]

Queen Mary University of London

UK

Heidbreder

Eva G.

[email protected]

Heim

Janina

[email protected]

Political Science, LMU Munich

Germany

Hughes

Gerard

[email protected]

Trinity College Dublin

Ireland

Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf

Germany

Hugoson

Rolf

[email protected]

CERUM Umeå University

Sweden

Hunger

Sophia

[email protected]

University of Göttingen, Chair of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy

Heine

Dirk

[email protected]

Germany

Erasmus University Rotterdam, University of Bologna, Hamburg University

y 390

Country

University of Copenhagen/ Department of Political Science

Hupe

Peter

[email protected]

Germany

Denmark

Dept. of Public Administration, Erasmus University Rotterdam

Netherlands

Heinrich

Steffen

[email protected]

German Institute for Japanese Studies (DIJ) Japan

Hurka

Steffen

[email protected]

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Germany

Hejzlarová

Eva

[email protected]

Department of Public and Social Policy,

Hustedt

Thurid

[email protected]

University of Potsdam

Germany Australia

Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

Hutchinson

Kelly

[email protected]

University of Melbourne

Helby Petersen

Ole

[email protected]

Roskilde University

Denmark

Hütten

Moritz

[email protected]

Goethe University Frankfurt a.M.

Germany

Heldeweg

Michiel

[email protected]

University of Twente

Netherlands

Hvinden

Bjorn

[email protected]

NOVA HIOA

Norway

Helgesen

Marit Kristine

[email protected]

Hwang

Boram

[email protected]

Pusan National University

South Korea

Hysing

Erik

[email protected]

Örebro University

Sweden

Teunis

[email protected]

Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research

Norway

Hellowell

Mark

[email protected]

University of Edinburgh

UK

Henry

Emmanuel

[email protected]

University of Paris-Dauphine

France

I

Herrera

William

[email protected]

Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

France

IJdens

Herweg

Nicole

[email protected]

University of Heidelberg

Germany

Higgott

Richard

[email protected]

University of Warwick

Australia

Hildebrandt

Achim

[email protected] Institute for the Social Sciences

Germany Denmark

Netherlands Centre of Expertise in Cultural Education and Amateur Arts

Infantino

Federica

[email protected]

Netherlands

université Libre de Bruxelles/Sciences Po Paris

Belgium

Himmelsbach

Raffael

[email protected]

Linköping University

Ingold

Karin

[email protected]

University of Bern

Switzerland

Hinterleitner

Markus

[email protected]

Center of Competence for Public Management,

Ingram

Helen M.

[email protected]

University of California at Irvine

USA

University of Bern

Switzerland

Isaza

Carolina

[email protected]

Universidad Externado de Colombia

Colombia

Hockenberry

Shelby

[email protected]

Elite Global Strategy

USA

Hogan

John

[email protected]

Dublin Institute of Technology

Ireland

J

Hong

Sung Gul

[email protected]

Kookmin University

South Korea

Jabbour

Jason

[email protected]

United Nations Environment Programme

Kenya

Hoornbeek

John

[email protected]

Kent State University

USA

Jager

Andreas

[email protected]

University of the Bundeswehr Munich

Germany Germany

Hopkins

Vincent

[email protected]

Simon Fraser University

Canada

Jager

Nicolas

[email protected]

Leuphana University Lüneburg

Hoppe

Thomas

[email protected]

University of Twente

Netherlands

Jamshaid

Syeda Hadika

[email protected]

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Russia

Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

Hoppe

Robert

[email protected]

University of Twente

Netherlands

Horikane

Yumi

[email protected]

Meiji University

Japan

Jan

Kohoutek

[email protected]

Hossein

Caroline

[email protected]

York University

Canada

Janenova

Saltanat

[email protected]

Nazarbayev University

Kazakhstan

Howlett

MIchael

[email protected]

Simon Fraser University

Canada

Jansson

Mikael

[email protected]

Unviersity of Victoria

Canada

391 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Name

First Name

Email

Karo

Erkki

[email protected]

Jarman

Holly

[email protected]

University of Michigan

USA

Jarvis

Darryl

[email protected]

Hong Kong Institute of Education

Hong Kong

Jayasree

Jisha

[email protected]

Jawahar Lal Nehru University

India

Jeffrey

Leslie

[email protected]

University of New Brunswick Saint John

Canada

Jegen

Maya

[email protected]

Université du Québec à Montréal

Canada

Jensen

Anne

[email protected]

Aarhus University

Denmark

Jensen

Olivia

[email protected]

National University of Singapore LKY School of Public Policy

Country

Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology Estonia

Karol

Olejniczak

[email protected]

Kashnikov

Boris

[email protected]

EUROREG, University of Warsaw

Poland

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Russia

Kasianiuk

Krzysztof

[email protected]

Collegium Civitas

Poland

Singapore

Katz

Juniper

[email protected]

University of Colorado - Denver

USA

Jenson

Jane

[email protected]

Université de Montréal

Canada

Kaufmann

David

[email protected]

University of Bern

Switzerland

Jeong

WooJin

[email protected]

Korea University

South Korea

Kay

Adrian

[email protected]

The Australian National University

Australia

Jesuit

David

[email protected]

Central Michigan University

USA

kelaher

Margaret

[email protected]

University of Melbourne

Australia

Jiménez Sánchez

Manuel

[email protected]

Universidad Pablo de Olavide

Spain

Kellow

Aynsley

[email protected]

University of Tasmania

Australia

Jodoin

Sébastien

[email protected]

McGill University

Canada

Kelstrup

Jesper Dahl

[email protected]

Roskilde University

Denmark

John

Tobias

[email protected]

University of Münster

Germany

Khallouki

Dounia

[email protected]

ENTPE

France

Johns

Carolyn

[email protected]

Ryerson University

Canada

khan

usman zia

[email protected]

Lahore Development Authority

Pakistan

Johnson

Genevieve Fuji

[email protected]

Simon Fraser University

Canada

Kharis

Ruth

[email protected]

The Australian National University

Australia

Jones

Bryan

[email protected]

University of Texas at Austin

USA

Kilaru

Asha

[email protected]

Independent

India

Jones

Stephen

[email protected]

Mercatus Center at George Mason University USA

Kilwein

John

[email protected]

West Virginia University

USA

Jordan

Andy

[email protected]

Tyndall centre

UK

Kim

Doorye

[email protected]

Busan social Welfare Development Institution South Korea

Jordan

Helen

[email protected]

The University of Melbourne

Australia

Kim

Yushim

[email protected]

Arizona State University

USA

Jordan-Zachery

Julia

[email protected]

Providence College

USA

Kim

Jong Sik

[email protected]

Ajou University

South Korea

Jovanic

Tatjana

[email protected]

University of Belgrade Faculty of Law

Croatia

King

Nicholas

[email protected]

McGill University

Canada

Juillet

Luc

[email protected]

University of Ottawa

Canada

Kipnis

Bernardo

[email protected]

University of Brasilia

Brazil

Jungblut

Jens

[email protected]

University of Oslo, Department of Education Norway

Kirschke

Sabrina

[email protected]

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Germany

Junqueira

Murilo

[email protected]

University of São Paulo

Brazil

Kjaer

AnneMette

[email protected]

Aarhus University

Justo

Carolina Raquel [email protected]

Universidade Federal de São Carlos)

Brazil

Klein

Fabian

[email protected]

K

y 392

Institution

Klenk

Tanja

Denmark

Freie Universität Berlin / Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies

Germany

[email protected]

University of Potsdam

Germany Germany

Kacarska

Simonida

[email protected]

European Policy Institute

FYROM

Klinnert

Anne

[email protected]

University Potsdam

Kamal-Yanni

Mohga

[email protected]

Oxfam

UK

Knaggård

Åsa

[email protected]

Department of Political Science,

Kammer

Aske

[email protected]

Centre for Journalism, University of Southern Denmark

Kammerer

Marlene

[email protected]

University Zürich

Switzerland

Knight

Kieran

[email protected]

Lund University

Sweden

University of Melbourne

Australia

Kapilashrami

Anuj

[email protected]

Inst. for International Health & Development

UK

Knill

Christoph

[email protected]

University of Munich

Germany

Kara

Taushif

[email protected]

Institute of Ismaili Studies

UK

Koch

Max

[email protected]

Lund University

Sweden

Karassin

Orr

[email protected]

Open University of Israel

Israel

Kochskämper

Elisa

[email protected]

Leuphana University Lüneburg

Germany

Kociemska

Hanna

[email protected]

University of Economics in Wroclaw

Poland

393 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Name

Koenig

Thomas

[email protected]

IHS

Austria

Le Galès

Patrick

[email protected]

Sciences Po Paris

France

Kolmas

Michal

[email protected]

Charles University in Prague,

Lebovitch

Amy

[email protected]

Sex Professionals of Canada

Canada

Metropolitan University

Czech Rep.

Lee

Jooha

[email protected]

Dongguk University

South Korea

Kolsuz

Gunes

[email protected]

Bilkent University

Turkey

Leeuw

Bastiaan

[email protected] Maastricht University

Koontz

Tom

[email protected]

University of Washington - Tacoma

USA

Legrand

Tim

[email protected]

Koppenjan

Joop

[email protected]

Erasmus University rotterdam

Netherlands

Email

Institution

Country

Netherlands

National Security College, Crawford School of Public Policy

Australia

Koski

Chris

[email protected]

Reed College

USA

Leifeld

Philip

[email protected]

University of Konstanz

Germany

Kovacs

Eva

[email protected]

National University for Public Service

Hungary

Leino

Helena

[email protected]

University of Tampere

Finland

Kowarsch

Martin

[email protected]

Leipold

Sina

[email protected]

Albert-Ludwigs University Freiburg

Germany

Leipprand

Anna

[email protected]

Mercator Research Institute on Global

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)

Germany

Kozlov

Vladimir

[email protected]

Higher School of Economics

Russia

Commons and Climate Change (MCC)

Germany

Krachkovskaya

Inna

[email protected]

University of Cagliari

Italy

Leite

Leonardo

[email protected]

Getulio Vargas Foundation - FGV EAESP

Brazil

Kropp

Sabine

[email protected]

Freie Universität Berlin

Germany

Lejoux

Patricia

[email protected]

LET-ENTPE

France

Kuhlmann

Johanna

[email protected]

Lelong

Bettina

[email protected]

Institute for Political Science, University of Muenster

Germany

ILS Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development

Germany

Künzler

Johanna

[email protected]

University of Berne

Switzerland

Lendvai

Noemi

[email protected]

University of Bristol

UK

Kurze

Kristina

[email protected]

Universität der Bundeswehr München

Germany

Lenschow

Andrea

[email protected]

University of Osnabrueck

Germany

Kuyper

Jonathan

[email protected]

Stockholm University

Sweden

Lev-On

Elazar

[email protected]

Ariel University

Israel

Kuzemko

Caroline

[email protected]

University of Exeter, UK

UK

Lewanski

Rodolfo

[email protected]

University of Bologna, Dipartiment

Kvinge

Torunn

[email protected]

of Political and Social Science

Italy

Norway

Lewis

Jenny

[email protected]

University of Melbourne

Australia

Greece

Li

Bingqin

[email protected]

ANU

Australia

Liao

Han-Teng

[email protected]

Oxford Internet Institute

UK

NIBR Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research

Kyriakidis

Kleanthis

[email protected] University of the Aegean

L La Brooy

y 394

First Name

Camille

[email protected]

The University of Melbourne

Liberman

Alejandro M.

[email protected] Libertad y Progreso Foundation

Argentina

Australia

Lidén

Gustav

[email protected]

Mid Sweden University

Sweden

Ladi

Stella

[email protected]

Queen Mary University of London

UK

Lieberherr

Eva

[email protected]

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

Switzerland

Lafuente

Sara

[email protected]

Université Libre de Bruxelles

Belgium

Lilla

Marco

[email protected]

LIS

Luxembourg

Lajh

Damjan

[email protected]

University of Ljubljana

Slovenia

Lim

Seong Ho

[email protected]

Kyung Hee University

South Korea Philippines

Lalinde Duque

David Mauricio [email protected]

Universidad de Antioquia, based in Medellin Colombia

Lin

Vivian

[email protected]

World Health Organization

Lang

Achim

[email protected]

University of Konstanz

Germany

Lindloff

Kirstin

[email protected]

Braunschweig University (Germany), Department of Social Sciences

Germany

University of Florence

Italy

Lange

Philipp

[email protected]

University of Basel Research

Switzerland

Larsen

Flemming

[email protected]

Aalborg University

Denmark

Lippi

Andrea

[email protected]

Lartigot-Hervier

Louise

[email protected]

Sciences Po Paris - LIEPP

France

Lipshits

Hadar

[email protected]

Ashkelon Academic College

Israel

Latorre

Carolina

[email protected]

The International Water Association (IWA)

Netherlands

Lissandrello

Enza

[email protected]

Aalborg University

Denmark

Latulippe

Lyne

[email protected]

University of Sherbrooke

Canada

Little

Ann

[email protected]

MacEwan University

Canada

lazin

fred

[email protected]

Ben Gurion University of the Negev

USA

Littor

Lilac

[email protected]

Tel Aviv University

Israel

395 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Name

Email

Institution

Country

Lo

William Yat Wai [email protected]

The Hong Kong Institute of Education

Hong Kong

Marina

Riva

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Lockie

Stewart

James Cook University

Australia

Marmor

Ted

[email protected]

Yale University

USA

[email protected]

Loeber

Anne

[email protected]

University of Amsterdam

Netherlands

Marovic

Jovana

[email protected]

Institute Alternativa

Montenegro

Loer

Kathrin

[email protected]

Fernuniversität Hagen

Germany

Marsilio

Marta

[email protected]

University of Milan

Italy

Longhini

Anna

[email protected]

Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences

Martel

Jc

[email protected]

University of Kansas

USA

SCUOLA NORMALE SUPERIORE (SNS)

Italy

Martin Mayoral

Fernando

[email protected]

FLACSO Ecuador

Ecuador

Netherlands

Martinez

Laureano

[email protected]

Universidad Publica de Navarra

Spain

Martins de Laia

Marconi

[email protected]

Fundação João Pinheiro

Brazil

Loyens

Kim

[email protected]

Utrecht University

Luca

Verzelloni

[email protected]

Centro de Estudos Sociais

Ludwig

Kathrin

[email protected]

Assessment Agency Lüggert

Max

[email protected]

Bonn University

Lukyanova

Anastasia

[email protected]

Universidade de Coimbra

Portugal

Marx

Lisa

[email protected]

University of Geneva

Switzerland

Mascia

Carla

[email protected]

GERME - ULB

Belgium

Netherlands

Mastruzzo

Giuseppe

[email protected]

International University College of Turin

Italy

Germany

Matesanz Parellada Ángela

[email protected]

Technical University of Madrid

Spain

Higher School of Economics in Moscow

Russia

Mathew

Ashwin

[email protected]

University of California, Berkeley/Packet

USA Matsuda

Ryozo

[email protected]

Netherlands Environmental

Luna

Joseph

[email protected]

Harvard University

Lundin

Martin

[email protected]

Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy

Sweden

M

y 396

First Name

Clearing House

USA

Ritsumeikan University

Japan

Mattocks

Kate

[email protected]

City University London

UK

Mätzke

Margitta

[email protected]

Johannes-Kepler-University Linz

Austria

Mavrot

Céline

[email protected]

University of Bern

Switzerland

Macias

Andres

[email protected]

Universidad Externado de Colombia

Colombia

Maxime

Jaffre

[email protected]

EHESS - Centre Norbert Elias, Marseille

France

MacInnes

Ian

[email protected]

Syracuse University

USA

Maynard-Moody

Steven

[email protected]

University of Kansas

USA

Mackillop

Eleanor

[email protected]

INLOGOV University of Birmingham

UK

Mazepus

Honorata

[email protected]

Leiden University

Netherlands

Maguire

Matthew

[email protected]

Boston University

USA

mazzanti

massimiliano

[email protected]

University of Ferrara & SEEDS

Italy

Maillet

Lara

[email protected]

ENAP

Canada

Mazzeo Rinaldi

Francesco

[email protected]

University of Catania - Dept. of Political

Canada Mazzoleni

Martino

[email protected]

Department of Political Science

Italy

McLaren

Kirsty

[email protected]

Australian National University

Australia

McNutt

Kathleen

[email protected]

Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School

Jason

[email protected]

Maioni

Antonia

[email protected]

McGill University

Majic

Samantha

[email protected]

John Jay College-City University of New York USA

Makatsaria

Nino

[email protected]

SEAF Georgia

Georgia

Maley

Maria

[email protected]

Australian National University

Australia

Malik

M. Rehan

[email protected]

Karachi School of Business and Leadership Pakistan

and Social Sciences

Italy

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,

Malinowska

Aleksandra

[email protected]

University of Texas Austin

USA

Maluf

Renato

[email protected]

Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro

Brazil

McSparren

Manda

Constantine

[email protected]

Yale University

Tanzania

Medrano-Caviedes Cecilia

[email protected] Sciences Po, Paris

USA

Mangin

Mailys

[email protected]

(CERAPS), University Lille 2,

France

Medzini

[email protected]

University of Haifa, Faculty of Law

Israel

Manzini

Raffaella

[email protected]

LIUC Università Cattaneo

Italy

Melloni

Erica

[email protected]

Istituto per la ricerca sociale

Italy

Margetts

Helen

[email protected]

University of Oxford

UK

Melo

Daniela

[email protected]

FGV/DAPP

Brazil

Rotem

of Public Policy

Canada

University of Massachusetts, Boston

USA

Maria Chiara

Demartini

[email protected]

Università degli Studi di Pavia

Italy

Menahem

GILA

[email protected]

Tel-Aviv University

Israel

Marier

Patrik

[email protected]

Concordia University

Canada

Mendez

Joseluis

[email protected]

El Colegio de México

Mexico

397 X

Name

First Name

Email

Mercier

Aurelie

[email protected]

Institution Transport Economics Laboratory, CNRS & University of Lyon

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Mukhopadhyay

Indranil

[email protected]

Public Health Foundation of India

India

France

Muñoz

Norma

[email protected]

Universidad de Santiago de Chile

Chile

Merklova

Katerina

[email protected]

Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

Murwantara Soecipto Raden

[email protected]

University of Antwerp

Belgium

Metze

Tamara

[email protected]

Tilburg University

Netherlands

Mwale

[email protected]

University of Brighton

UK

Meza Canales

Oliver David

[email protected]

Mexico

N

Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas - CIDE

Miaz

Jonathan

[email protected]

Shadreck

Naegler

Richard

[email protected]

University of Hamburg

Germany

of Strasbourg

Switzerland

Nagel

Melanie

[email protected]

University of Konstanz

Germany

Netherlands

Nagels

Nora

[email protected]

Université du Québec à Montréal

Canada

Narbutaite Aflaki

Inga

[email protected]

Karlstad University

Sweden

University of Lausanne and University

Michels

Ank

[email protected]

Universiteit Utrecht

Micol

Maggiolini

[email protected]

Turin University - Department of Culture, Politics and Society

Italy

Nava

Luigi

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Mikler

John

[email protected]

The University of Sydney

Australia

Ndong-Etroit

Maïmouna

[email protected]

Science Po Grenoble

France

[email protected]

CIRAD/University of Brasilia

Brazil

Negri

Fedra

[email protected]

University of Milan

Italy

Japan Nekola

Martin

[email protected]

Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

Milhorance de Castro Carolina

y 398

Country

Minamino

Kayo

[email protected]

Kyoto Women’s University

Minas

Renate

[email protected]

Department of social work,

Minonzio

Jerome

[email protected]

Molina

Gloria

[email protected]

Stockholm University

Sweden

Nekolová

Markéta

[email protected]

Fund of Continuing Education

Czech Rep.

Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3

France

Nemec

Juraj

[email protected]

Masaryk University Brno

Czech Rep.

Nestor

Franchesca

[email protected]

West Virginia University

USA

Neubauer-Shani

Michal

[email protected]

Ashkelon Academic College

Israel

National School of Public Health, University of Antioquia

Colombia

Møller

Marie Østergaard [email protected]

KORA

Denmark

Newig

Jens

[email protected]

Leuphana University Lüneburg

Germany

Moloney

Kim

[email protected]

University of Miami

USA

Nielsen

Helle Ørsted

[email protected]

Aarhus University

Denmark

Molteni

Susanna

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Niklasson

Birgitta

[email protected]

University of Gothenburg

Sweden

Mondini

Gabriele

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Nimu

Andrada

[email protected]

National School of Political Science

Mondragón

Jaione

[email protected]

Basque Country University

Spain

Montin

Stig

[email protected]

School of Public Administration,

Nishikawa

Toshiyuki

[email protected]

University of Gothenburg

Sweden

Nissinen

Marja

[email protected]

Montouroy

Yves

[email protected]

IEP Bordeaux

France

Montpetit

Eric

[email protected]

Université de Montréal

Canada

Nohrstedt

Daniel

and Public Administration

Romania

Surugadai University

Japan

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, IRC

Spain

[email protected]

Uppsala University

Sweden

Moon

M. Jae

[email protected]

Yonsei University

South Korea

Novak

Meta

[email protected]

University of Ljubljana,

Slovenia

Moro

F. Niccolo

[email protected]

University of Milan-Bicocca

Italy

Novotný

Vilém

[email protected]

Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

Mortensen

Peter

[email protected]

Aarhus University

Denmark

Morton

Alec

[email protected]

University of Strathclyde

UK

O

Moskvina

Julija

[email protected]

Lithuanian Social Research Centre

Lithuania

Oberfield

Zachary

[email protected]

Haverford College

USA

Mota

Fabiola

[email protected]

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Spain

Öberg

PerOla

[email protected]

Uppsala University

Sweden

Moyson

Stéphane

[email protected]

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Belgium

Ofek

Yuval

[email protected]

The University of Haifa

Israel

Mukherjee

Ankita

[email protected]

Jawaharlal Nehru University

India

Öhberg

Patrik

[email protected]

Department of Political Science

Sweden

399 X

Name

First Name

Email

Okma

Kieke

[email protected]

Institution

Country

Catholic University Leuven/ McGill University Montreal

First Name

Email

Parkhurst

Justin

[email protected]

USA

Institution

Country

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

UK

Olavarria-Gambi

Mauricio

[email protected]

University of Santiago, Chile

Chile

Pasi

Giulio

[email protected]

Institute of Advanced Study of Pavia

Italy

Oliver

Kathryn

[email protected]

University College London

UK

Pasini

Nicola

[email protected]

Università degli studi di Milano

Italy

Olmeda

Juan

[email protected]

El Colegio de México

Mexico

Pattyn

Valérie

[email protected]

KU Leuven Public Governance Institute

Belgium

Olofsson

Kristin

[email protected]

University of Colorado - Denver

USA

Patz

Ronny

[email protected]

LMU München

Germany

Olsson

Jan

[email protected]

Örebro University

Sweden

Pedler

Emmanuel

[email protected]

EHESS

France

Onursal Besgul

Ozge

[email protected]

Istanbul Bilgi University

Turkey

Pelaudeix

Cecile

[email protected]

Aarhus University, Arctic Research Center

Denmark

Oortwijn

Wija

[email protected]

Ecorys

Belgium

Pelizzo

Riccardo

[email protected]

Nazarbayev University

Kazakhstan

Orsini

Michael

[email protected]

School of Political Studies

Canada

Pellegata

Alessandro

[email protected]

University of Milan

Italy

Orta

Laura

[email protected]

Central Michigan University

USA

Pellizer

Daniele

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Ortar

Nathalie

[email protected]

ENTPE

France

Perez Monclus

Rosa

[email protected]

King’s College London

UK

Osimo

David

[email protected]

UOC

Spain

Perl

Anthony

[email protected]

Simon Fraser University

Canada

Ovtracht

Nicolas

[email protected]

Perna

Roberta

[email protected]

University of Turin

Italy

CNRS & University of Lyon

France

Person

Christian

[email protected]

Universität Konstanz

Germany

Turkey

Pesche

Denis

[email protected]

CIRAD

France

Pesenti

Luca

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

Transport Economics Laboratory,

Ozcurumez

Saime

[email protected]

Bilkent University

Ozisik

Fethi Ufuk

[email protected]

marmara university, faculty of political sciences - department of public administration (french)

Turkey

P Mexico

Petak

Zdravko

[email protected]

University of Zagreb

Croatia

Peters

Maaike

[email protected]

Catholic University of Louvain

Belgium

Peters

B. Guy

[email protected]

University of Pittsburgh

USA

Petit Jean

Maxime

[email protected]

Catholic University of Louvain

Belgium

Petkov

Mihail

[email protected]

University of Edinburgh

UK

Petraglia

Federica

[email protected] Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Pablo

Sánchez

[email protected]

Universidad Nacional Autónomade México

Pacheco-Vega

Raul

[email protected]

Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas - CIDE

Mexico

Petridou

Evangelia

[email protected]

Mid Sweden University

Sweden

Pahl-Wostl

Claudia

[email protected]

University of Osnabrueck

Germany

Petroni

Giorgio

[email protected]

Inaf (Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica)

Italy

[email protected]

Pal

Leslie

Carleton University

Canada

Petrovici, dr

Carmen

[email protected]

LIS Cross-National Data Center

Luxembourg

Palacios

Martha Lizbeth [email protected]

Universidad Iberoamericana

Mexico

Piffre

Oriana

[email protected]

King’s College London

UK

Palley

Marian

[email protected]

University of Delaware

USA

Pill

Madeleine

[email protected]

University of Sydney

Australia

Paquet

Mireille

[email protected]

Concordia University

Canada

Pinna

Paolo

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Paquette

Marie-Andree

[email protected]

Ecole nationale d’administration

Piron

Damien

[email protected]

University of Liège

Belgium Belgium

Paradowski

Piotr

[email protected]

publique (ENAP)

Canada

Pittoors

Gilles

[email protected]

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Luxembourg Income Study (LIS)

Luxembourg

Pleger

Lyn

[email protected]

Center of Competence for Public Management University of Bern

Switzerland

Pola

Gian Carlo

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Polásek

Martin

[email protected]

Parivudhiphongs

Alongkorn

[email protected]

King’s College London

UK

Park

Jong Hee

[email protected]

Seoul National University

South Korea

Parkhomenko

Sergey

[email protected]

National Research University Higher School of Economics

y 400

Name

Russia

Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Department of Political Science

Czech Rep.

401 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Polo

Jean-François

[email protected] Institute of Political Studies of Rennes

France

Pomatto

Gianfranco

[email protected]

University of Turin

Italy

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Ramesh

M

[email protected]

LKY School of Public Policy

Singapore

Ramos Silveira

Suely de Fátima [email protected]

Universidade Federal de Viçosa

Brazil

Pons

Xavier

[email protected]

University of East Paris CRéteil

France

Rappelli

Federico

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Poocharoen

Ora-orn

[email protected]

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

Singapore

Rasheed

Sabrina

[email protected]

ICDDR,B

Bangladesh Italy

Popic

Tamara

[email protected]

European University Institute

Italy

Ravazzi Douvan

Aldo

[email protected]

Italian MoE - OECD - U.Luiss

Porth

Kerry

[email protected]

Independent

Canada

Ravena de Sousa

Nirvia

[email protected]

Center for Advanced Studies of the Amazon

Porto de Oliveira

Osmany

[email protected]

NAEA-UFPa and Amazonia University Brazil

Brazil

Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris III Brazil

Ravinet

Pauline

[email protected]

Université Lille 2

France

National Research Univercity

Potsar

Anna

[email protected]

Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning

Higher School of Economics Centre d’Etudes en Habitat Durable - UCL

Rayner

Jeremy

[email protected]

University of Saskatchewan

Canada

Russia

Rebessi

Elisa

[email protected]

Università degli Studi di Milano

Italy USA

Pradella

Sebastien

[email protected]

Belgium

Redaelli

Eleonora

[email protected]

University of Oregon

Pregernig

Michael

[email protected] Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg

Germany

Regonini

Gloria

[email protected]

University of Milan, Dipartiment

Preidel

Caroline

[email protected]

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Germany

of Political and Social Science

Italy

Pretzer-Lin

Natalie

[email protected]

National Chengchi University

China

Reimer

Bill

[email protected]

Concordia University

Canada

Primeri

Emilia

[email protected]

IRCRES CNR

Italy

Repplinger

Matthieu

[email protected]

CEE - Sciences Po Paris

France

Profeti

Stefania

[email protected]

Riccardi

Michele

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

of Political and Social Sciences

University of Bologna - department Italy

Richards

Diana

[email protected]

University College London

UK

Australia

Richardson

Lilliard

[email protected]

IUPUI

USA

Richardson

Brooke

[email protected]

Ryerson University

Canada

Prosser

Brenton

[email protected]

ANU

Provini

Olivier

[email protected]

Université de Pau et des Pays des l’Adour/ Les Afriques dans le Monde

France

Rico Motos

Carlos

[email protected]

Universidad Pablo de Olavide

Spain

Puerari

Emma

[email protected]

Politecnico di Milano

Italy

Rietig

Katharina

[email protected]

De Montfort University

UK

Pülzl

Helga

[email protected]

EFICEEC BOKU University

Austria

Righettini

Maria Stella

[email protected]

University of Padova

Italy

Rijk

Natalya

[email protected]

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Netherlands

Rinscheid

Adrian

[email protected]

University of St.Gallen

Switzerland

Riousset

Pauline

[email protected]

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)

Germany

Ripberger

Joe

[email protected]

University of Oklahoma

USA

[email protected]

University Lyon 2

France

Q Quintero

Victor

[email protected]

Universidad Santiago de Cali

Colombia

R

y 402

Name

Raaphorst

Nadine

[email protected]

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Netherlands

Robelet

Magali

Radaelli

Claudio

[email protected]

University of Exeter

UK

Roberge

Ian

[email protected]

Glendon College

Canada

Radtke

Ina

[email protected]

University of Potsdam

Germany

Robinson

Scott

[email protected]

University of Oklahoma

USA

Radulova

Elissaveta

[email protected]

Maastricht University

Netherlands

Robson

Karen

[email protected]

York University

Canada

Raevskikh

Elena

[email protected]

Centre Norbert Elias

France

Rodon

Thierry

[email protected]

Université Laval

Canada USA

Rafaël

Cos

[email protected]

CERAPS/Université de Lille

France

Rohrer

Thomas

[email protected]

Central Michigan University

Rahm

Laura

[email protected]

CEPED

Germany

Roland

Martin

[email protected]

University of Cambridge School of

Rajevska

Feliciana

[email protected]

Vidzeme Univeraity of Applied Sciences

Latvia

Rajevska

Olga

[email protected]

University of Latvia

Latvia

Röllgen

Jasmin

[email protected]

Clinical Medicine

UK

Universität der Bundeswehr München

Germany

403 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Name

First Name

Romagnoli

Valeria

Romina

Menegazzi

[email protected] Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Saunders

[email protected] Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Savard

Rommetvedt

Hilmar

[email protected]

International Research Institute of Stavanger Norway

Savona

Ernesto

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

Roncarolo

Franca

[email protected]

University of Turin, Dipartiment of Culture,

Sawa

Keiko

[email protected]

Kyoto Women’s University

Japan

Politics and Society

Italy

Sbaraglia

Fanny

[email protected]

Université Libre de Bruxelles

Belgium

Ronit

Karsten

[email protected]

Department of Political Science

Denmark

Scaglione

Emilia

[email protected]

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Institution

Theresa

[email protected]

University of Lethbridge

Canada

Jean-Francois

[email protected]

ENAP

Canada

Canada

Rosell

Jordi

[email protected]

Universitat de Barcelona

Spain

Scala

Francesca

[email protected]

Concordia University

Rossetti

Sonia

[email protected]

University of Queensland - Australia

Australia

Schaffrin

Andre

[email protected]

EA European Academy of Technology

Country

Rothmayr Allison

Christine

[email protected] Université de Montréal

Canada

and Innovation Assessment

Germany

Rouault

Sophie

[email protected]

Bremen University of Applied Sciences

Germany

Schiffino-Leclercq

Nathalie

[email protected]

Université catholique de Louvain

Belgium

Rousseau

Isabelle

[email protected]

El Colegio de México

Mexico

Schindler

Eva

[email protected]

University of Potsdam

Denmark

Ruediger

Marco

[email protected]

Fundação Getúlio Vargas

Brazil

Schlager

Edella

[email protected]

University of Arizona

USA

Ruffing

Eva

[email protected]

University of Hannover

Germany

Schlaufer

Caroline

[email protected]

University of Bern

Switzerland

Russel

Duncan

[email protected]

University of Exeter

UK

Schlimmer

Sina

[email protected]

Sciences Po Bordeaux

France

Russell

Meg

[email protected]

University College London

UK

Schmidt

Vivien

[email protected]

Boston University

USA

Russolillo

Daniele

[email protected] Fondazione per l’Ambiente

Schneider

Volker

[email protected]

University of Konstanz

Germany

Schoenaers

Frederic

[email protected]

University of Liège

Belgium

Scholten

Miroslava

[email protected]

Utrecht University

Netherlands

Scholten

Peter

[email protected]

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Netherlands

Schoyen

Mi Ah

[email protected]

Turin School of Local Regulation

Italy

S

y 404

Email

Sabag-Ben Porat

Chen

[email protected]

Bar Ilan university

Israel

Saetren

Harald

[email protected]

University of Bergen

Norway

NOVA Norwegian Social Research, Oslo & Akershus University College

Norway

Sager

Fritz

[email protected]

University of Bern

Switzerland

Schrama

Reini

[email protected]

ETH Zürich

Switzerland

Salvetti

Maria

[email protected]

FSR - Sorbonne Business School

France

Schröder

Nadine

[email protected]

Humboldt-University of Berlin

Germany

Salvona

Andrea

[email protected]

Univerity of Stirling

UK

Schubert

Samuel

[email protected]

Webster University Vienna

Austria

Sanchez Medero

Gema

[email protected]

Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Spain

Schubert

Klaus

[email protected]

Institute for Political Science,

Santaniello

Mauro

[email protected]

Università degli Studi di Salerno

Italy

University of Muenster

Germany

Santos

Susana

[email protected]

ISCTE-IUL

Portugal

Schulz

Tobias

[email protected]

Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL

Switzerland

Santos

Renata

[email protected]

Universidade de Brasília

Brazil

Schulz

Martin

[email protected]

Netherlands School of Public Governance

Netherlands

Santos-Silva

Augusto

[email protected]

University of Porto, Faculty of Economics

Portugal

Schweizer

Remi

[email protected]

Sanz-Menendez

Luis

[email protected]

CSIC Institute of Public Goods and Policies

Spain

Sarapuu

Külli

[email protected]

Tallinn University of Technology

Estonia

Schwindenhammer Sandra

[email protected] Humboldt University of Berlin

Sardell

Alice

[email protected]

Queens College, CUNY

USA

Sedlacko

Michal

[email protected] University of Applied Sciences FH Campus

Saretzki

Thomas

[email protected]

Wien, Public Management

Austria

Leuphana University Lueneburg

Germany

Segal

Ehud

[email protected]

Hebrew University

Israel Singapore

Institute of political, historical and International studies, University of Lausanne Switzerland

Center for the Study of Democracy,

Germany

Sarikaya

Ibrahim

[email protected]

Bogazici University

Turkey

Segre

Gabriele

[email protected]

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

Sarson

Leah

[email protected]

Queen’s University

Canada

Seifert

Jan

[email protected]

German Institute of Global and Area Studies Germany

405 X

Name

y 406

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Selva

Donatella

[email protected]

Luiss Guido Carli

Italy

Speck

Stefan

[email protected]

European Environment Agency

Denmark

Severo

Marta

[email protected]

Université de Lille 3

France

Sredojevic

Sladjana

[email protected]

Association of Serbian Banks

Serbia

Shanahan

Elizabeth

[email protected]

Montana State University

USA

St Clair

Penelope

[email protected]

University of Canberra

Australia

Shaver

Frances M

[email protected]

Concordia Univeresity

Canada

St Denny

Emily

[email protected]

Nottingham Trent University

UK

Shaw

Marta

[email protected]

Jagiellonian University

Poland

Standridge

Priscilla

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

Shaw

Richard

[email protected]

Massey University

New Zealand

Staronova

Katarina

[email protected]

Comenius University

Slovakia

Shields

John

[email protected]

Ryerson University

Canada

Steffen

Monika

[email protected] PACTE/IEP Grenble University

France

Shockley

Gordon

[email protected]

Arizona State University

USA

Steinbacher

Karoline

[email protected]

Freie Universität Berlin

Germany

Sibbmark

Kristina

[email protected]

IFAU

Sweden

Steinbacher

Karoline

[email protected]

Freie Universität Berlin

Germany

Sicilia

Mariafrancesca [email protected]

University of Bergamo

Italy

Sterett

Susan

[email protected]

Virginia Tech

USA

Siefken

Sven

[email protected]

Martin-Luther-University Halle Wittenberg

Germany

Stevens

Vidar

[email protected]

University of Antwerp

Netherlands

Sienkiewicz

Mariusz

[email protected]

Marie Curie Sklodowska University

Poland

Stone

Diane

[email protected]

Murdoch University

Australia

Sixsmith

Judith

[email protected]

University of Northampton

UK

Storm Pedersen

John

[email protected]

University of Southern Denmark

Denmark

Skogstad

Grace

[email protected]

University of Toronto

Canada

Strachan

J. Cherie

[email protected]

Central Michigan University

USA

Skuciene

Daiva

[email protected]

Vilnius University

Lithuania

Strassheim

Holger

[email protected]

Humboldt-University Berlin

Germany

Sliwowski

Pawe

[email protected]

University of Warsaw

Poland

Struyven

Ludo

[email protected]

KU Leuven

Belgium

Sloman

Sabina

[email protected]

McGill University

Canada

Stubbs

Richard

[email protected]

McMaster University

Canada

Slomian

Cynthia

[email protected]

Université de Liège

Belgium

Stucki

Iris

[email protected]

University of Bern

Switzerland

Smith

Neale

[email protected]

University of British Columbia

Canada

Studlar

Donley

[email protected]

University of Strathclyde

UK

Smith

Katherine

[email protected]

University of Edinburgh

UK

Sullivan

Helen

[email protected]

University of Melbourne

Australia

Smith

Steven

[email protected]

American Political Science Association

USA

Svensson

Petra

[email protected]

School of Public Administration

Sweden

Smith Devetak

Naomi

[email protected]

The University of Queensland

Australia

Swanson

Jayson O.

[email protected]

University of Oslo

Norway

Smullen

Amanda

[email protected]

Australian National University

Australia

Sych

Lawrence

[email protected]

Central Michigan University

USA UK

Smyth

Stewart

[email protected]

University of Sheffield

UK

Syrett

Keith

[email protected]

Cardiff University

Solar

Carlos

[email protected]

University of York

UK

Szeto

Wing Yip

[email protected]

Willy Brandt School of Public Policy,

Somuano

Fernanda

[email protected]

El Colegio de México

Mexico

Sonat

Duygu

[email protected]

University of Potsdam

Germany

University of Erfurt

Soriani

Cristina

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

T

Germany

Sorrentino

Maddalena

[email protected]

Università degli Studi di Milano

Italy

Takle

Marianne

[email protected]

NOVA, HiOA

Norway

Soto

Carlos

[email protected]

Universidad Externado de Colombia

Colombia

Talias

Motti

[email protected]

Hebrew University, Israel

Israel

Souche

Stephanie

[email protected]

University of Lyon

France

Tarkhanova

Oleksandra

[email protected] University of Bielefeld

Sousa

Rômulo

[email protected]

UFPA

Brazil

Tavanti

Cecilia

[email protected]

Soybakis

Ozan

[email protected]

Germany

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - ASERI Italy

Tawat

Mahama

[email protected]

Higher School of Economics

New Zealand

en Sciences Sociales

France

Taylor

Marcy

[email protected]

Central Michigan University

USA

Ecole des Hautes Etudes

Spada

Paolo

[email protected]

University of British Columbia

Canada

Taylor

Christopher

[email protected]

University of Melbourne

Australia

Spapens

Toine

[email protected]

Tilburg University

Netherlands

ter Bogt

Henk

[email protected]

University of Groningen

Netherlands

407 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Name

Email

Institution

Country

Thiel

Andreas

[email protected]

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Germany

Valkova

Jana

[email protected]

Masaryk University, Faculty of Social Studies Czech Rep.

Thierse

Stefan

[email protected]

University Duisburg-Essen

Germany

Vallbe

Joan-Josep

[email protected]

Institute for Information Law (IViR)

Netherlands

Thomann

Eva

[email protected]

University of Bern

Switzerland

Van Alstine

James

[email protected]

University of Leeds

UK

Thunus

Sophie

[email protected]

University of Liege

Belgium

Van Berkel

Rik

[email protected]

Utrecht University

Netherlands

Thurbon

Elizabeth

[email protected]

UNSW Australia

Australia

Van Breugel

Ilona

[email protected]

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Netherlands

Thygesen Vendius

Trine

[email protected]

Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen

Denmark

Van Bueren

Ellen

[email protected]

Delft University of Technology

Netherlands

Tilio

Lucia

lucia.tilio@eupolislombardia

Éupolis Lombardia

Italy

Van Damme

Jan

[email protected]

Public Governance Institute, KU Leuven

Belgium

Tjerbo

Trond

[email protected]

University of Oslo

Norway

Van Der Berg

Caspar

[email protected]

Leiden University

Netherlands

Tobin

Paul

[email protected]

University of York

UK

Van der Dussen

Sophie

[email protected]

Université Libre de Bruxelles

Belgium

Toeller

Annette

[email protected]

FernUniversitaet Hagen

Germany

Van Eeden

Pepijn

[email protected]

ULB

Belgium

Tok

Evren

[email protected]

HBKU

Qatar

Van Montfort

Cor

[email protected]

Tilburg University

Netherlands

Tomei

Gabriele

[email protected]

Università di Pisa

Italy

Van Nispen

Frans K.M.

[email protected]

Erasmus University of Rotterdam

Netherlands

Tomm

Laura Isabell

[email protected]

University of Braunschweig

Germany

Van Nispen

Suzanne

[email protected]

n.a.

Netherlands

Tõnurist

Piret

[email protected]

Tallinn University of Technology

Estonia

Van Parys

Liesbeth

[email protected]

Torny

Didier

[email protected]

INRA

France

Tosun

Jale

[email protected]

Heidelberg University

Germany

Toth

Federico

[email protected]

University of Bologna

Italy

Van Popering-Verkerk Jitske

Research Institute for Work and Society and Centre for Sociological Research, University of Leuven

Belgium

[email protected]

Erasmus University of Rotterdam

Netherlands Belgium

Trein

Philipp

[email protected]

Université de Lausanne

Switzerland

Vandoninck

Joost

[email protected]

KU Leuven

Trzcinski

Rafal

[email protected]

Foundation IDEA for Development

Poland

Vanhille

Josefine

[email protected]

Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp Belgium

Tsatsanis

Emmanouil

[email protected]

CIES-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa

Portugal

Váradi

Balázs

[email protected]

Budapest Institute for Policy Analysis

Hungary

Tsuchiya

Miyuki

[email protected]

University Paris 2 Assas

France

Varone

Frédéric

[email protected]

University of Geneva

Switzerland

Tupper

Allan

[email protected]

University of British Columbia

Canada

Vas

Christopher

[email protected]

Murdoch University

Australia

Turnbull

Nick

[email protected]

University of Manchester

UK

Vasilescu

Cristina

[email protected]

Istituto per la ricerca sociale

Italy

Turner

John

[email protected]

Pension Policy Center

USA

Vassileva

Margarita

[email protected]

Centra Marc Bloch de Berlin

Germany

Vecchi

Giancarlo

[email protected]

Politecnico di Milano

Italy UK

U Ugyel

Lhawang

[email protected]

Australian National University

Australia

Uldanov

Artem

[email protected]

Higher School of Economics Moscow

Russia

Vecchione

Elisa

[email protected]

LSHTM

Veggeland

Frode

[email protected]

University of Oslo and Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research

Norway

Ulgen

Ovgu

[email protected]

Bogazici University

Turkey

Veit

Sylvia

[email protected]

University of Kassel

Germany

Uno

Jiro

[email protected]

Sapporo University

Japan

Velasco

Maria

[email protected]

Universidad Complutense De Madrid

Spain

Velázquez

Rodrigo

[email protected]

Usar

Iornumbe

[email protected]

Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh

Nigeria

Uzoikina

Ekaterina

[email protected]

HSE

Russia

Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas - CIDE

Venugopal

V

y 408

First Name

Rajeev

[email protected]

Mexico

Saint Thomas University, University of New Brunswick

Canada

Vaitsman

Jeni

[email protected]

Oswaldo Cruz Foundation

Brazil

Verhoog

Reinier

[email protected]

EPFL

Switzerland

Välikangas

Anita

[email protected]

University of Helsinki

Finland

Versluis

Esther

[email protected]

Maastricht University

Netherlands

409 X

Name

First Name

Email

Institution

Country

Name

Email

Institution

Country

Vesan

Patrik

[email protected]

University of Aosta Valley

Italy

Westerheijden

Donald

[email protected]

CHEPS, University of Twente

Netherlands

Veselý

Arnošt

[email protected]

Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University

Czech Rep.

White

Linda

[email protected]

University of Toronto

Canada

Vigour

Cécile

[email protected]

Wigan

Duncan

[email protected]

Copenhagen Business School

Denmark

France

Wiktorowicz

Mary

[email protected]

York University

Canada

Centre Emile Durkheim (CNRS / Sciences Po Bordeaux)

Villarreal

Eduardo

[email protected]

Williams

Russell

[email protected]

Memorial University

Canada

y Docencia Económicas - CIDE

Centro de Investigación Mexico

Wilson

Gary

[email protected]

University of Northern British Columbia

Canada

Spain

Wilson

Graham

[email protected]

Boston University

USA

Wincott

Daniel

[email protected]

Cardiff University

UK

Viñas

Verónica

[email protected]

Carlos III University of Madrid

Viscusi

Gianluigi

[email protected]

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

Winkel

Georg

[email protected]

University of Freiburg

Germany

Visier

Claire

[email protected]

European Institute / Istanbul Bilgi University Turkey

Witting

Antje

[email protected]

University of Konstanz

Germany

Vlad

Ioana

[email protected]

London School of Hygiene

Witz

Petr

[email protected]

(EPFL) - CDM-MTEI-CSI

Switzerland

and Tropical Medicine

UK

Université de Liège

Belgium

Wohlers

State University of Campinas (UNICAMP)

Brazil

[email protected]

Vogeler

Colette Sophie

[email protected] Technische Universität Braunschweig

Germany

Wojtowicz

Dominika

[email protected]

Kozminski University

Poland

Voorberg

William

[email protected]

Netherlands

Wolf

Frieder

[email protected]

Institut fuer Politische Wissenschaft

Germany

Vukasovic

Martina

[email protected]

Wolff

Sarah

[email protected]

Queen Mary University of London

UK

Belgium

Wollmann

Hellmut

[email protected]

de

Germany

Wood

Amanda

[email protected]

University of Auckland

New Zealand

Wood

Matt

[email protected]

University of Sheffield

UK

Centre for Higher Education Governance

W

[email protected]

Czech Rep.

Antonioa

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Marcio

Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague

Vlassis

Ghent (CHEGG), Ghent University

y 410

First Name

Wagenaar

Hendrik

[email protected]

University of Sheffield

UK

Workman

Samuel

[email protected]

University of Oklahoma

USA

Wai Shun

Chan

[email protected]

Lancaster University

Hong Kong

Worsham

Jeff

[email protected]

West Virginia University

USA

Walker

Christopher

[email protected]

University of New South Wales, Australia

Australia

Wright

Shelley

[email protected]

Langara College

Canada

Warbroek

W.D.B. (Beau)

[email protected]

University of Twente

Netherlands

Wylie

Lloy

[email protected]

Western University

Canada

Waring

Peter

[email protected]

Murdoch University

Singapore

Warnement

Megan

[email protected]

North Carolina State University

USA

X Xia

Bingqing

[email protected]

Macau University of Science and Technology Macao

Wavre

Veronique

[email protected]

University of Exeter

Switzerland

Wayenberg

Ellen

[email protected]

Ghent University

Belgium

Weaver

Robert Kent

[email protected]

Georgetown University

USA

Weckert

Elina

[email protected]

Académie de Versailles, CLG BUC

France

Yagci

Mustafa

[email protected]

Koc University

Turkey

Weible

Christopher

[email protected]

University of Colorado - Denver

USA

Yan

Huang-ting

[email protected]

National Taiwan University

Taiwan

Weiner

Richard R

[email protected]

Rhode Island College

USA

Yap

Fiona

[email protected]

The Australian National University

Australia

Weinstock

Daniel

[email protected]

McGill University

Canada

Yassin

Nasser

[email protected]

American University of Beirut

Lebanon

Y

Weiß

Jens

[email protected]

Hochschule Harz

Germany

Yildirim

Deniz

[email protected]

Bilkent University

Turkey

Wentrup

Robert

[email protected]

CIBS

Sweden

Yoshino

Gabriel

[email protected]

Universidade Federal do Pará

Brazil

Young

Mitchell

[email protected]

Charles University in Prague

Czech Rep.

Wenzelburger

Georg

[email protected]

TU Kaiserslautern

Germany

Wesselink

Anna

[email protected]

Unesco-IHE

Netherlands

411 X

Name

First Name

Email

Ysebaert

Walter

[email protected]

Yves Patrick

Institution

Country

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Free University of Brussels)

Belgium

M. Nkomba

[email protected]

Université de Yaoundé II soa

Cameroon

Steffen

[email protected]

University of Konstanz

Germany

Z Zabler Zainal Bahrin

Nur Liyana

[email protected]

Universiti Teknologi MARA,Malaysia

Malaysia

Zambrana

Ruth Enid

[email protected]

University of Maryland

USA

Zampini

Giulia

[email protected]

University of Kent

UK

Zanarotti

Chiara

[email protected]

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

Zanetic

André

[email protected]

Center for the Study of Violence

Brazil

Zardo

Federica

[email protected]

University of Turin

Italy

Zaytsev

Dmitry

[email protected]

Higher School of Economics

Russia

Zdanovich

Yana

[email protected]

Higher School of Economics National Research University

Zeijlon

Magdalena

[email protected] School of Global Studies

Sweden

Zengin

Asl?han

[email protected]

Bogazici University

Turkey

Zhang

Wenjie

[email protected]

The University of Texas at Austin

USA

Zhelyazkova

Asya

[email protected]

ETH Zurich

Switzerland

Zito

Anthony

[email protected]

Newcastle University

UK

Zittoun

Philippe

[email protected]

LET-ENTPE

France

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

Italy

Zoboli

Roberto

[email protected]

Zohlnhöfer

Reimut

[email protected] University of Heidelberg.

Zonneveld

Michelle

[email protected]

Departnment of Political Science

Germany

Radboud University Nijmegen

Netherlands

Zorba

Myrsini

[email protected]

C. Simitis Foundation

Greece

Zorlu

Melek

[email protected]

Ankara University Social sciences inst.

Turkey

Zornoza

Juan-Antonio

[email protected]

National University of Colombia

Colombia

Zucchini

Francesco

[email protected]

Università degli Studi di Milano, Dept. Social and Political Sciences

y 412

Russia

Zulkifli

Nur Wahida

[email protected]

Zurbriggen

Cristina

[email protected] Universidad de la Republica

Universiti Teknologi MARA,Malaysia

Italy Malaysia Uruguay

413 X

PRATICAL INFORMATION

CONFERENCE LOCATION

CONFERENCE RELATED EVENTS

5 4 2 3

1

6

1

y The conference is taking place at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore

near St. Ambrogio Metro station (Green Line), in buildings 1, 2 and 3 on the map. - The main entrance for registration is located in Largo Gemelli site (1). - Panels will be organised in Largo Gemelli site (1), Sant’Agnese building (2) and via Nirone building (3). - The welcome speech and first plenary session will be held at Teatro Dal Verme (4) which is 10 min on foot from the University. - Coffee breaks and lunches are organized inside the University (1 and 2): - Coffee breaks are held at either St. Caterina Garden - Largo Gemelli (1), or St. Agnese (2); - Lunches at Santa Caterina Garden - Gemelli (1). You can also find plenty of Italian bars and restaurants around the University which is in the City center.

y416

Drinks Reception at Castello Sforzesco (5) Wednesday 1st July 2015, at 7:30 pm Piazza Castello, Milan

Gala Dinner at Museo Diocesano (4) Thursday 2nd July 2015, at 8:30 pm Corso di Porta Ticinese, 95 Milan

From Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (1) - Cairoli (Red Line) and Cardona (Red Line and Green Line) Metro Station; or - Bus Line 58 or 94; or - 14 min on foot

From Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (1) - Bus Line 94: 2 stops from St Ambrogio to Colonne di San Lorenzo - then walk down Corso di Porta Ticinese; or - 15 min on foot

You are invited to visit Michelangelo’s famous sculpture Pietà Rondanini which is located at the Castello’s Museum and will be kept open to the Conference participants during the drinks reception. 417 X

MILAN TRANSPORTATION

ABOUT MILAN

y Travelling in the city is easy with the underground train (Metro): at www.atm-

y Expo Milano 2015 - Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life

mi.it you can enter the address you need or your journey details and this site will give you a personal printable guide. Urban tickets (Metro, Tramway, Bus): - Single ticket: €1.50 (valid in combination with city trams and buses for a maximum journey time of 90 minutes) - Evening ticket unlimited journeys from 8 p.m. until last service: €3 - 24 hour ticket unlimited journeys: €4.50 - 48 hour ticket unlimited journeys: €8.25 - 10-journey ticket: €13.80 If you want to visit the Expo 2015 site: - By Metro (Red Line Rho Fiera Milano; return ticket €5); or - By Train (From Porta Venezia Station; Repubblica Station; Porta Garibaldi Station; Train Line S5, S6, S11, S14 line every 10 min; return ticket €4.40) Metro lines:

1

Red line

2

Green line Abbiategrasso/Milanofiori Forum - Cologno Nord/Gessate

3

Yellow line San Donato - Comasina

5

Lilac line

Sesto 1º Maggio - Rho Fiera/Bisceglie

Bignami - San Siro Stadio

For further information about your hotel, please contact: AIM Group International - AIM Congress Srl - Accommodation Division - Milan Office Via G. Ripamonti, 129 - 20141 Milan, Italy - Phone: +39 02 566011 - Fax: +39 02 56609043 E-mail: [email protected] ICPP APP Download the App. “ICPP Milan 2015” on your smart phone.

y418

From 1st May to 31st October 2015

Expo is a global showcase where more than 140 participating countries show how the best of their technology offers a concrete answer to a vital need: being able to guarantee healthy, safe and sufficient food for everyone, while respecting the Planet. In addition to the exhibitor nations, the Expo also involves international organisations, and expects to welcome over 20 million visitors to its 1.1 million square meters exhibition area. Expo Milano 2015 is a huge sensory experience made up of many food tastings and a myriad of events. From all over the world, entrepreneurs, researchers, experts, chefs and artists are gathering to take part in an extraordinary and unique exposition, packed with shows, events, congresses and meetings. Is it possible to guarantee water and food for the entire world population? Is it possible to increase food security? Are new solutions that take into account the planet’s biodiversity possible? The main focus of Expo Milano 2015 is nutrition which will be the discussion platform for both biodiversity and traditional cultures. Today’s paradox is that half of the world is facing food deprivation, with many dying from malnutrition after living in impoverished conditions with no access to drinkable water, while the other half of the world is dealing with physical and physiological diseases due to a poor diet and being overweight. The exhibition asks the question whether it is possible to solve this paradox through science, education, prevention, international cooperation and social and political engineering.

y Expo in Città (.com)

1st May to 31st October 2015

The City centre is hosting a series of cultural and recreational events connected to Expo Milano 2015.

419 X

ABOUT MILAN

y Places to visit The central focus of Milan is the Duomo, the cathedral. The centrality of the Duomo is confirmed and further endorsed by the great basilicas which circle the city like planets around the sun. The Castello Sforzesco - the seat of the sovereign prince until 1498-1500 when the Duchy forever lost its independence - does not squarely face the Cathedral; in fact it’s on the sidelines, behind the walls it was built to guard. It is the city’s large palaces and historical cultural institutions such as the Pinacoteca di Brera, the Biblioteca Ambrosiana Art Gallery, and the Teatro della Scala which gravitate towards the cathedral and its square. These are the main historical and cultural monuments to visit in Milan: y Duomo: Symbol of the city, the sumptuous Duomo roof with the Madonnina Little Madonna, offers a wonderful panorama of Milan. y Galleria Vittorio Emanuele: One of the world’s oldest shopping malls. Housed within a four-story double arcade, the Galleria is named after Vittorio Emanuele II, the first king of the Kingdom of Italy. y Piazza dei Mercanti: For centuries the administrative and commercial hub of the city, this central square is now intimate and traffic free, and preserves its medieval character. y The Castle/Castello Sforzesco: This landmark is a vast brick quadrilateral, dominated by the Filarete tower. Symbol of the Renaissance age, today it is home to some excellent civic museums. y Teatro alla Scala, Piazza Scala: The sober façade of La Scala, built by Maria Theresa Empress of Austria and Duchess of Milan, belies its world-famous red and gold interior. y Fashion District: Known as “The Golden Quad” since the 1900’s, it’s the most exclusive shopping area of the city. y Pinacoteca di Brera: The Brera Gallery is one of the finest collections of northern Italian art. From small beginnings the collection was enlarged by Napoleon to include the region’s major artists. y San Simpliciano: Behind the unassuming façade of this church dedicated to Ambrose’s successor Simpliciano, lies a large, austere yet beautiful interior.

y420

421 X

ABOUT MILAN

y Santa Maria delle Grazie: Even if you cannot see the world-famous Last Supper of Leonardo da Vinci, the Church is an art gallery in itself and should not be missed. y Sant’Ambrogio: Named after the city’s patron saint, Sant’Ambrogio is a supreme example of Romanesque architecture and the prototype from which many Lombard churches take their pattern. y San Maurizio: The unremarkable façade right on busy Corso Magenta gives no hint of the glories inside – a riot of just-restored baroque frescos on every surface. y Colonne di San Lorenzo: This huge basilica may have originated as the chapel of the imperial Roman palace. Its greatest treasure is the fourth-century Sant’Aquilino chapel, still containing some 4th century mosaic fragments. y Ambrosian Library and Gallery: Named after Ambrose, the patron saint of Milan, this library, school and art gallery was founded by Cardinal Federico Borromeo (1564–1631).

y Museums and exhibitions - Palazzo Reale (Duomo square): Leonardo Da Vinci exhibition and much more! - Museo del Novecento (Duomo square): Contemporary Italian art - Museo della Triennale (Viale Emilio Alemagna, 6 - close to Cadorna square): Design and arts - MUDEC – Museo delle Culture (Via Tortona, 56 - close to Navigli area - Green Line Porta Genova): African Arts and much more - Science and Technology Museum (Via San Vittore, 21 - Green Line Sant’Ambrogio): Leonardo da Vinci gallery and railway pavilion - Hangar Bicocca (Via Chiese, 2 - Metro Line 4 Bicocca): Juan Munoz and Damian Ortega exhibition - PAC - Padiglione d’Arte Contemporanea Milano (Via Palestro, 14 - Red Line Palestro) International modern art - Spazio Forma (Via Meravigli 5 - Green Line and Red Line Cadorna): photos exhibitions and much more - The Garden and the Planetarium (c.so Venezia, 57 - Red Line Palestro) with inside lies one of the most important naturalistic museums in Europe y422

ABOUT MILAN

y Drinks, Restaurants and Shopping The best places to have a walk or a drink are: Darsena, Navigli, Colonne di San Lorenzo, Brera, Arco della Pace, Isola, Porta Nuova (skycrapers) Green area: Parco Forlanini (Idroscalo), Giardini della Guastalla, Parco delle Basiliche, Giardini di Porta Venezia (“Indro Monanelli”), Parco Solari, Parco Sempione Recommended restaurants and cocktail bars: y Università Cattolica area: - Bar Magenta (Via Carducci 13): Historical bar, meeting place for university students - Bianca (Via Bartolomeo Panizza, 10): Design and seafood - BoccondiVino (Via Carducci, 17): Winery and restaurant - Dry (Via Solferino 33): Experimental cocktails - Foresta Wood Bar (Via Celestino IV, 6): Surrounded by bamboo canes in a tropical environment - Orti di Leonardo (Via Aristide de Togni, 6): Historical place, a gift from Ludovidco il Moro to Leonardo - Panini Durini (Corso Magenta 31): Fresh sandwiches, coffee and “aperitivo”

y -

Colonne di San Lorenzo and center area: Cantina della Vetra (Via Pio IV, 3): A traditional restaurant, great for brunch Chiosco di Pippo (Via Manin, 6): Inside Giardini di Porta Venezia El Brellin (Alzaia Naviglio Grande, 14): A charming location where the best of traditional Italian cuisine is served La Brisa (Via Brisa, 15): In the center of Milan; elegant atmosphere Maio (Piazza del Duomo): Located on the top floor of “La Rinascente” in front of the Duomo Rebelot del Pont (Ripa di Porta Ticinese 55): Classic mixed drinks, as well as an exclusive selection of cocktails created by Oscar Quagliarini, one of best European mixologists Rita&Cocktail (Via Angelo Fumagalli 1): Don’t miss a “Willy Wonka” cocktail Rosso Pomodoro (Largo Foppa, 1): Traditional Italian pizza Trattoria Toscana (Corso di Porta Ticinese, 58): The joy and the essence of Tuscan cousine 423 X

ABOUT MILAN

y Isola - Garibaldi area: - Bianco Latte (Via Filippo Turati, 30): A cosy café - Eataly (Piazza XXV Aprile, 10): High quality produce from all over Italy, gathered in one place - Les pommes (Via Pastrengo, 7): A new bistro close to the skycrapers - Ratanà (Via Gaetano de Castillia, 28): Excellent quality, traditional cuisine from Milan and Lombardy in the new Porta Nuova Garibaldi district y Porta Venezia area: - Balera dell’Ortica (Via Amadeo, 78): A traditional menu eaten around the dance floor under an arbor of ivy - Bar Martini (Corso Venezia 15) A fashionable place to drink a Martini cocktail - La Mantia (Piazza Risorgimento angolo Via Poerio 2/A): Sicilian cuisine by chef Filippo La Mantia - Nottingham Forest (Viale Piave, 1): Cocktails, especially for lovers of the Mojito and Negroni - Osteria del Treno (Via S. Gregorio, 46): Between Central Station and Piazza della Repubblica the old tradition of Milanese cuisine sponsored by Slow Food - Pravda Vodka Bar (Via Carlo Virradini, 6): No better place in Milan for Vodka cocktails.

ABOUT MILAN

y Shopping areas

- for all budgets: Corso Vittorio Emanuele (Duomo area); Via Torino (Duomo area); Corso Buenos Aires (Metro Line 1 Porta Venezia); - for luxury: via Montenapoleone and via della Spiga (Duomo area) - for design and fashion: Navigli area

In an emergency call 112 the European emergency phone number is available 24/7 free of charge.

y Porta Romana area: - Arci Bellezza (Via Bellezza, 16): Good quality and cheap prices for this club; you can dance all night and listen local bands - Carlo e Camilla in Segheria (Via Giuseppe Meda, 24): Carlo Cracco’s restaurant - Cascina Cuccagna (Via Cuccagna, 2): A working farm within the city - La Tradizionale (via Bergognone, 16): A beautiful garden serving traditional cuisine

y424

425 X

GEMELLI SITE

LANZONE BUILDING

GROUND FLOOR

1st FLOOR

G.134

TABANELLI

1st FLOOR

G.135

VIA S.PIO V

ROSMINI

G.005 Z AN AL VI

CRIPTA

E ON

G.015

LUNCHES AND COFFEE BREAK

S. CATERINA D’ALESSANDRIA GARDEN

AULA MAGNA BASEMENT AULA MAGNA

G.016

MARIA IMMACOLATA ENTRANCE

PUBLISHERS’ STANDS

G.022

VIA NECCHI

MANZONI

G.024

STAFF AND LANGUAGE ROOM

BENEDETTO XV CLOISTER

G.012 PIO XII

S.AGOSTINO

PIO XI CLOISTER

INFO POINT

BAR REGISTRATION

ENTRANCE INGRESSO BANCOMAT LARGO GEMELLI

y426

427 X

GEMELLI SITE

LANZONE

FIRST FLOOR

BUILDING G.122

C. LOMBARDO

G.123

G. PAOLO I

VIA LANZONE

G.124

ST. CHIARA

SECOND FLOOR

G.121

ST. ANSELMO

VL2-05 G.251

G.108

VL2-04 G.253

LAZZATI VIA LANZONE

G.115

G.114

BISLETI

PIO XI CLOISTER

STAIRS

RUFFILLI

FIRST FLOOR VL1-03 G.151

ENTRANCE

G.113 MEDA

VL1-02 G.153

VIA LANZONE

VL0-01 G.053

BENEDETTO XV CLOISTER

y428

GROUND FLOOR

429 X

SA.115

SANTA AGNESE

PAOLO VI

BUILDING

SA.112

FRASSATI

SA.114

PIGNEDOLI

SA.117

MAZZOTTI

ENTRANCE

FIRST FLOOR

SA.115

PAOLO VI

SA.221 SA.117

S. BENEDETTO MAZZOTTI DA SIENA

SA.015

SA.015

COFFEE BREAK

COFFEE BREAK COFFEE BREAK

STICCO

SA.222

ENTRANCE

COFFEE BREAK

STICCO

COFFEE BREAK COFFEE BREAK

GROUND FLOOR

DEL GIUDICE

SA.221 SA.223

S. FRANCESCO BENEDETTO S. DA SIENA

SECOND FLOOR

SA.222

DEL GIUDICE

SA.223

S. FRANCESCO

BASEMENT

SA.325

SA.006

CALDERINI

SA.008 SA.006

THIRD FLOOR

SA.325

CALDERINI

SA.008

y430

431 X

NIRONE

TEATRO DAL VERME

BUILDING

- WELCOME SPEECH - PLENARY SESSION 1 AND 2 NI.112

FIRST FLOOR

NI.111

BU RO FO

ONAPART

PIAZZA CASTELLO

E

CORSO

NI.011

E

GN

A

VI

CORDUSIO

DUOMO

CAR DUC C

I

GROUND FLOOR

TEATRO DAL VERME

NE

NI.010

A S.

NTA

O VIA NIR

SE

MAGE

VIA S. Al GIOV MU AN RO NI

CAIROLI

CADORNA

BOCCACCIO

VI A

TO

VIA

RI NO

LARGO GEMELLI

S. AMBROGIO

VIA

LAN

ZON

E

MISSOR

VIA NIRONE

433 X

y432 S. AGOSTINO

ICPP

LOCATION LANZA BU RO FO

ONAPART

5 PIAZZA CASTELLO

E

CAIROLI

O VIA NIR

E

AG

DUOMO

NO VI

A

VIA

1

PIAZZA DUOMO

RI

DUC

LARGO GEMELLI

CAR

CORDUSIO

3

TO

CI

S.

S NE

IGLI

VIA MERAV

NE

A

VI

VIA

2

AGENTA

CORSO M

4

S. Al GIOV MU AN RO NI

CADORNA

BOCCACCIO

VIA

LAN

E

VI

A

S. AGOSTINO E

RT A

DE

AM

IC

IS

VA O

PA P

IM

NI

O

AN

O

RS

PO

N GE

CO

Università Cattolica Largo Gemelli site

4

Teatro Dal Verme

5

2 Castello Sforzesco

Università Cattolica Santa Agnese building

3

Università Cattolica Nirone building

Museo Diocesano

7

Università Cattolica Lanzone building

6

AN

A

6

1

RO

M

PORTA TICI

AL

MISSORI CO RS O

RINO

VIA TO

CORSO DI

VI

7

ZON

NESE

S. AMBROGIO