Conceptual Grammar for Analysing Policy Movement Work Group 2: Miguel Lim, Chris Muellerleile, Jana...
-
Upload
rudolph-anderson -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Conceptual Grammar for Analysing Policy Movement Work Group 2: Miguel Lim, Chris Muellerleile, Jana...
Conceptual Grammar for Analysing Policy Movement
Work Group 2:Miguel Lim, Chris Muellerleile, Jana Bajevic, Tatyana Bajenova, Sina Westa, Janja Komljenovic
WG 2 - Asssigned Texts
• Dryzek, J. (2006). Policy Analysis as Critique.• Hajer, M. and D. Laws. (2006). Ordering
Through Discourse.– In Moran, M., Rein, M. and R. Goodin (eds). 2006.
The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy.
Asssigned Texts
• Dryzek, J. (2006). Policy Analysis as Critique– “Critical theory is directed at an audience of
sufferers in order to make plain to them the causes of their suffering” (p.192)
– Attention to the linguistic turn and review of techniques to deal with ‘text’
– There are ‘tasks’ for the critical policy analyst
Asssigned Texts
• Hajer, M. and D. Laws. (2006). Ordering Through Discourse– The central role of the concept of ambivalence– ”Governing is in large a part a matter of defining
the situation” (p.252)– Analysis’ goal: to ‘illuminate the mechanisms that
are used to manage ambivalence’ (p.263)– Analysts’ ordering devices: beliefs, frames and
discourses
Speaking to Peck et al.
• Mobility (Peck 2011) vs. Coining of policy in situ (Dryzek 2008, Hajer and Laws 2008)
• Both chapters not directly connected to policy travel– evolution of policy analysis as a field and tend to
lean on constructivist side– Commonalities include:• attention to both structure and agency• Attention to ‘social’ reality around policy transfer
Speaking to Peck et al.
• Rational-instrumental towards embedded-relational
• A. Dryzek (2008): Technocratic > accommodative > critical analysis > linguistic turn
• B. Hajer and Laws (2008): Advocacy coalition framework > framing > narrative and discourse
• C. Peck (2011): focus on the mobility of policy: distinguishing between diffusion models, theories of transition, and neo-diffusionist approaches.
Speaking to Peck et al.
• Big picture issues:• Critical policy analysis and/vs orthodox
approaches to policy transfer• Commitments of critical analysis (to
‘democracy’, other institutions)• Emerging network society and networked
problem solving
Speaking to Peck et al.
• Big picture issues:• Peck and Peck and Theodore: rethink the
notion of policy altogether in the context of policies, politics, and policy based "knowledge" that are highly mobile.
• Need for new methodologies to examine
hybrid "policies"
Further questions
• What should we care about? Sufferers? Is critical policy analysis of policy transfer always about identifying a sufferer? If so, then: who what when where why…?
Further questions
• A consideration on the ontologies of policy and epistemologies/methodologies for understanding policy. – Do we need a new ontology of policy? – Does the conventional definition of policy help or
hinder our research?