@article{Daviter2018,
  author    = {Daviter, Falk},
  title     = {The framing of EU policies},
  series = {Handbook of European Policies Interpretive Approaches to the EU},
  journal   = {Handbook of European Policies Interpretive Approaches to the EU},
  publisher = {Edward Elgar Publishing},
  address   = {Cheltenham},
  isbn      = {978-1-78471-936-4},
  doi       = {10.1080/13501760701314474},
  pages     = {91 -- 112},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This chapter discusses how framing analysis can contribute to studies of policy making in the European Union (EU). Framing analysis is understood as an analytical perspective that focuses on how policy problems are constructed and categorised. This analytical perspective allows researchers to reconstruct how shifting problem frames empower competing constituencies and create changing patterns of political participation at the supranational level. Studies that assume a longitudinal perspective on EU policy development show how the framing of EU policy is constitutive of the way in which the jurisdictional boundaries and constitutional mandates of the EU evolve over time. Reviewing the growing body of empirical studies on EU policy framing in the context of the diverse theoretical origins of framing analysis, the chapter argues that framing research which takes seriously the notion that policy-making involves both puzzling and powering allows this analytical perspective to contribute a unique perspective on EU policy making.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{Daviter2017,
  author    = {Daviter, Falk},
  title     = {Coping, taming or solving},
  series = {Policy Studies},
  journal   = {Policy Studies},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412684},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {One of the truisms of policy analysis is that policy problems are rarely solved. As an ever-increasing number of policy issues are identified as an inherently ill-structured and intractable type of wicked problem, the question of what policy analysis sets out to accomplish has emerged as more central than ever. If solving wicked problems is beyond reach, research on wicked problems needs to provide a clearer understanding of the alternatives. The article identifies and explicates three distinguishable strategies of problem governance: coping, taming and solving. It shows that their intellectual premises and practical implications clearly contrast in core respects. The article argues that none of the identified strategies of problem governance is invariably more suitable for dealing with wicked problems. Rather than advocate for some universally applicable approach to the governance of wicked problems, the article asks under what conditions different ways of governing wicked problems are analytically reasonable and normatively justified. It concludes that a more systematic assessment of alternative approaches of problem governance requires a reorientation of the debate away from the conception of wicked problems as a singular type toward the more focused analysis of different dimensions of problem wickedness.},
  language  = {en}
}