国家治理体系现代化的制度样本——评析《重大行政决策程序暂行条例》

《重大行政决策程序暂行条例》是新时代推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的制度样本。它统筹协调处理行政决策所涉及的多种关系,以形成良法善治的制度合力。理论上,它对行政决策范围的界定、重大行政决策的判断标准、公众参与的模式、合法性审查的模式、行政决策的终身责任追究等方面进行了回应或取舍。制度上,它对适用主体、重大决策事项划定方式、创新和拓展公众参与渠道、专家库和专家信用体系建设等问题进行了回应与设计。     

The OBR and the March 2023 Budget: The Travails of UK Economic Growth and the Politics of Technocratic Fiscal Governance

This article places the Office for Budget Responsibility's commentary on the March 2023 UK Budget in political context. It explores how increased independent expert input has transformed the UK economic policy regime, focussing on the complex relationship between rules-based economic governance, independent oversight and fiscal discipline. The technocratic veneer that enshrines the UK fiscal watchdog obscures the inevitable politics of rules-based fiscal governance. The recent budget revealed OBR scepticism about how far budget measures can address the UK economy's long-term structural weaknesses. This underlined the key role for judgment inherent within technocratic fiscal oversight.     

A decision analytic model to guide early‐stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology

Synthetic biology (SB) involves the alteration of living cells and biomolecules for specific purposes. Products developed using these approaches could have significant societal benefits, but also pose uncertain risks to human and environmental health. Policymakers currently face decisions regarding how stringently to regulate and monitor various SB applications. This is a complex task, in which policymakers must balance uncertain economic, political, social, and health‐related decision factors associated with SB use. We argue that formal decision analytical tools could serve as a method to integrate available evidence‐based information and expert judgment on the impacts associated with SB innovations, synthesize that information into quantitative indicators, and serve as the first step toward guiding governance of these emerging technologies. For this paper, we apply multi‐criteria decision analysis to a specific case of SB, a micro‐robot based on biological cells called “cyberplasm.” We use data from a Delphi study to assess cyberplasm governance options and demonstrate how such decision tools may be used for assessments of SB oversight.     

论政治研究中事实判断与价值判断统一的理论基础

政治领域有两类客观存在：经验事实与无法经验的形而上存在。经验事实的价值由无法经验的存在所决定。因此,在政治研究中,有关现实政治中形而上存在“是”怎样的判断是其事实判断与价值判断统一的理论基础。     

Getting a Seat at the Table: Capital,Capture and Expert Groups in the European Union

European Commission expert groups provide powerful platforms from which interest organisations can steer the EU consultation process and weigh in on policy outcomes. Commission decision-makers and bureaucrats rely heavily on expert groups to provide expert policy advice on highly technical issues in the early stages of the policymaking process. Interest organisations provide this advice in order to have their voices heard at the EU level. But whose interests are being represented in these expert groups? Which types of interest organisations, in other words, get a seat at the table and why? This article, using data on over 800 expert groups and nearly 3,000 interest organisations, argues that expert group membership is largely a function of superior resources, EU-level interests and existing institutionalised ties to decision-makers. Far from simply addressing the Commission’s need for expertise, expert group membership is more a story of capital and capture.     

Depleted Uranium,Public Science,and the Politics of Closure

The public controversy over depleted uranium (DU) seems to follow a standard trajectory—scientific closure, via the reduction of scientific uncertainty, led directly to policy closure, as government bureaucracies increasingly downplayed its dangers and denied redress to exposed individuals. Closer inspection, however, reveals a more complex dynamic. A series of expert, public science reports, while articulating a shared narrative of DU safety, actually accentuated great uncertainty concerning DU's biological effects, mirroring new uncertainties raised by ongoing scientific research. Policy closure is thus mirrored in neither the scholarly scientific literature nor in broader political realms, suggesting a close and unique relation between the expert reports and governmental policy making. Public science institutions and the expert reports they produce are crucial political resources for resolving governmental policy making but are decidedly less successful at closing the broader political debate.     

Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics,a case study

Policy Sciences - Experts hold a prominent position in guiding and shaping policy-making; however, the nature of expert input to decision-making is a topic of public debate. A key aspect of...     

Can experts judge elections? Testing the validity of expert judgments for measuring election integrity

Expert surveys have been used to measure a wide variety of phenomena in political science, ranging from party positions, to corruption, to the quality of democracy and elections. However, expert judgments raise important validity concerns, both about the object being measured as well as the experts. It is argued in this article that the context of evaluation is also important to consider when assessing the validity of expert surveys. This is even more important for expert surveys with a comprehensive, worldwide scope, such as democracy or corruption indices. This article tests the validity of expert judgments about election integrity – a topic of increasing concern to both the international community and academics. Evaluating expert judgments of election integrity provides an important contribution to the literature evaluating the validity of expert surveys as instruments of measurement as: (1) the object under study is particularly complex to define and multifaceted; and (2) election integrity is measured in widely varying institutional contexts, ranging from electoral autocracies to liberal democracies. Three potential sources of bias are analysed (the object, the experts and the context), using a unique new dataset on election integrity entitled the ‘Perceptions of Electoral Integrity’ dataset. The data include over 800 experts in 66 parliamentary and presidential elections worldwide. It is found that validity of expert judgments about election integrity is increased if experts are asked to provide factual information (rather than evaluative judgments), and if they are asked to evaluate election day (rather than pre‐election) integrity. It is also found that ideologically polarised elections and elections of lower integrity increase expert disagreement about election integrity. The article concludes with suggestions for researchers using the expert survey data on election integrity on how to check the validity of their data and adjust their analyses accordingly, and outlines some remaining challenges for future data collection using expert surveys.     

Judging unethical behavior: the different effects of external and public service motivation

ABSTRACT

While the claim that Public Service Motivation (PSM) has a positive effect on ethical judgment is well-established in the literature, this link is less clear for external sources of motivation. Little is known about how these two types of motivation can be influenced to boost ethical judgment. This article addresses these two shortcomings, studying the effects of PSM and external motivation on the judgment of unethical actions, and the process of assumption of institutional logics by individuals with more basic needs satisfaction. The empirical analysis applies full structural equation modeling, testing the hypotheses on a sample of 574 case managers working on a program that integrates health and social services in Catalonia (Spain). The results illustrate the distinct relation of PSM and external motivations with the judgment of unethical acts. They also indicate that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs indirectly reduces the acceptance of unethical acts. However, this indirect effect only happens through PSM. These findings have important implications for academic research and for the prevention of the development of mild judgments of unethical behavior in the workplace.     

Evaluating expert judgments

Abstract.  Although expert surveys have gained a prominent place in comparative studies of party positions on issues, their validity has been called into question. In this article, some of the validity concerns are evaluated in the context of the authors' own expert survey on national party positions vis-à-vis European integration. One goal of the article is to demonstrate that this expert survey produces valid measures of party positions. An equally important goal, however, is to suggest some methods that can help in assessing the quality of expert survey data. These methods, which are rooted in psychometric theory, are applicable in a variety of contexts and are easily implemented.     

Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning

This research note reports on the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys (CHES), which measure national party positioning on European integration, ideology, and several European Union (EU) and non‐EU policies. The reliability of expert judgments is examined and the CHES data are cross‐validated with data from the Comparative Manifesto Project, the 2003 Benoit‐Laver expert survey and the 2002 Rohrschneider‐Whitefield survey. The dataset is available on the CHES website.     

Pragmatic solidarity and asylum expert witnessing

The demand for expert witness testimony has increased in recent years as the numbers of applicants for refugee status/asylum continue to rise and legal restrictions tighten. While the contribution of expert testimony improves outcomes for refugee and asylum claimants and has generated new critical scholarship, participation as an expert witness is not without political, legal, and ethical concerns. Framed in terms of “pragmatic solidarity,” or the application of specialized knowledge to social justice goals, this article situates expert testimony in refugee and asylum procedures within wider considerations of power to explore how it is both beneficial and problematic, and how it may shape, and be shaped by, a researcher’s own situated questions, methods, and orientation.     

WHEN IS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE JUSTIFIED?

" Along with such things as free and regular elections and an independent judiciary empowered to interpret the constitution (not necessarily written), civil disobedience used with due restraint and sound judgment helps to maintain and strengthen just institutions. "—John Rawls, A Theory of Justice .     

A case history of the application of social judgment theory to policy formulation

Social judgment theory provides (1) a theoretical framework for understanding the origin of policy quarrels and (2) methods for their resolution. Social judgment theory asserts that differences in policy are often cognitive in origin. Such cognitive differences are produced by the highly interdependent aspects of the more or less unreliable environments within which policies are made. Discussion alone is often insufficient for resolving policy differences because the covert, inconsistent nature of human judgment prevents individuals from accurately describing their cognitive processes. Consequently, judgmental aids, such as computer graphics technology and input-output analysis, are necessary in order to externalize and thus to clarify the causes of disagreement. Social judgment theory, computer graphics technology, and input-output analysis were successfully employed both in formulating an agency-wide policy as well as specifying how this policy would be implemented. Empirical support for the theoretical position was thus obtained.     

浅论可罚的违法性的判断标准

对于轻微的犯罪行为采用可罚的违法性理论来说明,这在理论和实践中都是得到证明的,但是 判断标准应该如何来界定却是个难题。本文认为,判断行为是否具有可罚的违法性的标准应包括构成要件 阻却和违法性阻却两个方面。构成要件阻却包括质的相对性和量的轻微性,违法性阻却包括目的的正当性、 手段的相当性、法益的衡量、危害的轻微性、行为的必要性与紧急性。     

Determinants of political judgments: The joint influence of normative and heuristic rules of inference

Prior research on political judgment has been polarized, with one group emphasizing normative models of political inference and the other emphasizing heuristic models of political inference. In accordance with recent findings in psychology, this article is rooted in the assumption that both normative and heuristic criteria simultaneously influence political judgments. Furthermore, differences in the relative extent to which these two processes serve to determine political judgments are hypothesized to depend on the nature of the judgment task. Two kinds of political judgments are considered: judgments reflecting beliefs about the candidates' stands on the issues and judgments reflecting global evaluations of the candidates. The reported results confirm that (1) voters rely on both normative- and heuristic-based considerations when forming these judgments, and (2) the relative extent to which these criteria influence these judgments depends on the complexity of the judgment task.     

The Role of Experts in the European Union's Research Policy

This research analyzes the role of experts in the European Union's policy‐making process. Focusing on the field of research policy, this study seeks to probe how expert participation in the Open Method of Coordination informs policy decisions. The paper reports on an analysis of the expert group in the European Internationalization Strategy in Science and Technology. Our analysis reveals the dynamics of expert participation at the micro level, as it identifies who these experts are, how they are appointed, and in what ways expert knowledge gets used in policy making.     

Qualitative Experteninterviews in Internationalen Organisationen

The article addresses the question of how to categorize different expert interviews in empirical research on international organizations. First of all, we discuss what is unique in analysing International Organizations. Afterwards, four different types of expert interviews are distinguished depending on the interest in the subject. Finally, the article connects the typology of expert interviews with the discussion of the organizational turn in IO-studies and discusses the consequences of the methodological approach proposed in this article. The findings are underlaid by case studies from research on international organizations.     

论期待可能性理论与我匡刑事立法和司法

期待可能性理论对刑事立法的借鉴意义主要体现在刑事立法应当融入伦理价值判断，应当关注弱势群体方面。在具体的立法设置上，不宜在刑法总则中作出具体明确的规定，可以在分则中就一些具体问题作出规定。期待可能性理论在司法实务中的运用主要体现是，要求法官应当具备衡平观念，在案件的具体裁判中倾注道德判断。     

Qarase v. Bainimarama: the End of Democratic Rule in Fiji?

The judgment in Qarase v. Bainimarama provided a legal basis for the 2006 military coup in Fiji and stated that the President was entitled to grant authority to the military to act outside of the powers prescribed by the written Constitution. According to the ruling, the Royal Prerogative powers that remained in government following British rule could be utilised by the President at any time that he considered it necessary. This paper explores the rationale for that judgment and the role that Royal Prerogative powers may play in the governance of countries that were previously subject to British rule. It further considers the impact of this judgment upon democracy in Fiji and the future protection of human rights for its citizens.