300 Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Wicked problems (1)
- complex problems (1)
- governance (1)
- policy analysis (1)
- problem-solving (1)
Institute
The framing of EU policies
(2018)
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.
Coping, taming or solving
(2017)
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.