Building organizational reputation in the European regulatory state: An analysis of EU agencies' communications

Organizational‐reputation literature has advanced our understanding about the U.S. regulatory state and its agencies. However, we lack contributions on what a reputational account can add to our knowledge about the European regulatory state, the strategic behavior of supranational agencies, and their endeavors to legitimize themselves in a multilevel political system. We know little of how reputation‐management strategies vary across EU agencies and why. The study offers the very first mapping of organizational‐reputation‐management patterns across all EU agencies, as well as the first empirical assessment on how reputational considerations guide supranational agencies' legitimation strategies. The results indicate that EU agencies facing higher reputational threats revert to their avowed raison d'être (i.e., technical conduct). We find that regulatory agencies utilize a more diverse set of reputational strategies by emphasizing the technical, procedural, and moral reputations more than nonregulatory agencies, whereas social‐policy agencies foster their technical reputation more than economic‐policy agencies.     

Capacity for public administration: analysis of meaning and measurement

Public administration researchers and practitioners have placed a heavy emphasis on the theme of programme performance. More recently, there has been a growing sentiment in the literature about the integral role of organisational capacity in achieving performance. While this is often expressed in the (re)iteration of a ‘management matters’ mantra, we see some disarray in the broader capacity literature both in definition and application. As scholars call for more integrated models of governance that link, for example, capacity and performance, we see a growing need for an analysis of the concept of capacity. Using bibliometric and content analyses to explore scholarly treatment of capacity constructs, this article assesses whether the perceived disarray is real, and if so what consequences it might have. We do so by reporting on capacity's meaning and measurement through an analysis of four decades of the private, public and nonprofit management literatures. While specific definitions of capacity are, by nature, context dependent, we conclude by distilling a general, conceptual framework of capacity for public management researchers and practitioners. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The logic of regulatory impact assessment: From evidence to evidential reasoning

Agencies involved in generating regulatory policies promote evidence-based regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) to improve the predictability of regulation and develop informed policy. Here, we analyze the epistemic foundations of RIAs. We frame RIA as reasoning that connects various types of knowledge to inferences about the future. Drawing on Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation, we situate deductive and inductive reasoning steps within a schema we call the impact argument. This approach helps us identify inherent uncertainties in RIAs, and their location in different types of reasoning. We illustrate the theoretical section with impact assessments of two recent legislative proposals produced by the European Commission. We argue that the concept of “evidence-based regulatory impact assessment” is misleading and should be based on the notion of “regulatory impact assessment as evidential reasoning,” which better recognizes its processual and argumentative nature.     

National styles of regulation: Child care in three countries

An analysis of child care regulations in Germany, Sweden, and the United States reveals distinctive national policy styles. A ‘social constructionist’ perspective, with its emphasis on variable problem definitions, helps to explain such differences. However, a full understanding of regulatory differences requires attention to regulatory solutions as well. By disaggregating the concept of regulation, we are able to demonstrate rather different rank-orderings of our three countries in their regulatory solutions. We attribute these differences to cultural, institutional, and political characteristics of the three countries.     

Missing links between regulatory resources and risk concerns: Evidence from the case of food safety in China

Do resources available to regulatory agencies matter for public perceptions of social risks? In this paper we use the case of food safety in China to empirically examine the relationship between regulatory resources and risk concerns. The multilevel model estimates suggest that neither regulatory revenue nor personnel is significantly related to public concerns over food safety. There is also no significant interaction effect between regulatory resources and food scandals. Despite the fact that sufficient fiscal revenue and manpower are the prerequisites of effective food safety regulation, they do not elicit more favorable public perceptions. These are the two missing links leading to the insignificant effect of regulatory resource inputs. First, ineffective distribution and deployment of resources and the lack of external participation retard the growth of regulatory capacity. Second, underinvestment in risk communication and the amplification effect of risks undermine regulatory legitimacy. We discuss the theoretical and policy implications of the results, and conclude with research limitations and suggestions for future research.     

Beyond regulatory capture: Coproducing expertise for critical infrastructure protection

Complex industries such as petroleum production, civil aviation, and nuclear power produce “public risks” that are widely distributed and temporally remote, and thus tend to be ignored by the risk producers. Regulation is perhaps the most common policy tool for governing such risks, but requires expert knowledge that often resides solely within the industries. Hence, many scholars and policymakers raise concerns about “regulatory capture,” wherein regulation serves private interests rather than the public good. This paper argues that regulatory capture framing has tended to limit understanding of expertise and its role in governing public risks. Most studies of regulatory capture treat expertise as a source of knowledge and skills that are created exogenously to political processes, and which can therefore be politically neutral. By contrast, we draw on work in science and technology studies that highlight the value‐laden and relational nature of knowledge and expertise, showing how its formation is endogenous to political processes. Thus, we argue for both broadening analyses of regulatory capture to consider the historically contingent and uncertain process of creating expert knowledge, and going beyond the capture framing by considering the challenge of negotiating different epistemologies and ways of life. We illustrate this analytic strategy by examining the history of and current debate about critical infrastructure protection standards to protect the United States electric power grid from cyberattack. We conclude by considering the broader implications of these findings for governing public risks.     

The Epistemic Status of Intelligence: An Epistemological Contribution to the Understanding of Intelligence

We argue that the majority of intelligence definitions fail to recognize that the normative epistemic status of intelligence is knowledge and not an inferior alternative. We refute the counter-arguments that intelligence ought not to be seen as knowledge because of 1) its action-oriented scope and 2) its future-oriented content. We dismiss the traditional infallibilistic understanding of knowledge and follow David Lewis' argument, that knowledge is fallible and context-sensitive. Thus, we argue for the importance of developing a methodology by which the entitlement, justification and robustness of claims to intelligence-knowledge can be assessed.     

Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework for Novel Genetically Engineered Organisms and Gene Drives

In this article, a new framework for improving risk assessments of novel genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) is developed and applied. The Procedurally Robust Risk Assessment Framework (PRRAF) provides a set of principles and criteria for assessing and enhancing risk assessment protocols for GEOs under conditions of high uncertainty. The application of PRRAF is demonstrated using the case of a genetically engineered mosquito designed to kill its wild population and therefore decrease disease transmission. Assessments for regulatory approval of this genetically engineered insect fall short of several PPRAF criteria under the principles of humility, procedural validity, inclusion, anticipation, and reflexivity. With the emergence of GEOs designed to spread in ecosystems, such as those with gene drives, it will become increasingly important for regulatory agencies and technology developers to bolster their risk analysis methods and processes prior to field testing. PRRAF can be used as a flexible guide for doing so within a variety of institutional, regulatory, and governance contexts.     

Is regulatory innovation fit for purpose? A case study of adaptive regulation for advanced biotherapeutics

The need to better balance the promotion of scientific and technological innovation with risk management for consumer protection has inspired several recent reforms attempting to make regulations more flexible and adaptive. The pharmaceutical sector has a long, established regulatory tradition, as well as a long history of controversies around how to balance incentives for needed therapeutic innovations and protecting patient safety. The emergence of disruptive biotechnologies has provided the occasion for regulatory innovation in this sector. This article investigates the regulation of advanced biotherapeutics in the European Union and shows that it presents several defining features of an adaptive regulation regime, notably institutionalized processes of planned adaptation that allow regulators to gather, generate, and mobilize new scientific and risk evidence about innovative products. However, our in-depth case analysis highlights that more attention needs to be paid to the consequences of the introduction of adaptive regulations, especially for critical stakeholders involved in this new regulatory ecosystem, the capacity and resource requirements placed on them to adapt, and the new tradeoffs they face. In addition, our analysis highlights a deficit in how we currently evaluate the performance and public value proposition of adaptive regulations vis-à-vis their stated goals and objectives.     

Interministerielle Netzwerke: Formale und informelle Koordinationsstrukturen bei der Vorbereitung der deutschen Verhandlungspositionen zur Regierungskonferenz 1996

How do German ministries manage the preparation of national negotiation positions for EU intergovernmental conference? After a survey of the debate on organizational deficits of the interministerial coordination in Germany, we are consulting decision- and organization-theoretic approaches in IR. Drawing on organizational economics we concretise and supplement these older frameworks. We conceive the management of a governmental organization as a specific aggregation of heterogeneous preferences and information. Applying social network analysis we take into account formal as well as informal aspects of coordination channels. The objective of this article is to make visible the complex structures and processes that constitute foreign policy making, and to provide a preliminary assessment of its efficiency.     

A theory of risk colonization: The spiralling regulatory logics of societal and institutional risk

Abstract

Explanations of the growing importance of risk to regulation identify three processes; the need to respond to newly created and discovered risks; the growth of regulatory frameworks; and the use of the risk instrument as an organizing idea for decision-making in modernity. Synthesizing these explanations, we propose a theory of risk colonization. We introduce a distinction between societal and institutional risks, the former referring to threats to members of society and their environment, and the latter referring to threats to regulatory organizations and/or the legitimacy of rules and methods of regulation. We argue that pressures towards greater coherence, transparency, and accountability of the regulation of societal risks can create institutional risks by exposing the inevitable limitations of regulation. In the first stage of risk colonization, framing the objects of regulation as ‘risks’ serves as a useful instrument for reflexively managing the associated institutional threats. This can be followed, in a second stage, by a dynamic tension between the management of societal and institutional risks that results in spiralling feedback loops. The very process of regulating societal risks gives rise to institutional risks, the management of which sensitizes regulators to take account of societal risks in different ways. We discuss links between this theory and the concept of governmentality and conclude with some speculations about the possible positive and negative consequences of risk colonization.     

Regulatory reform in the era of new technological development: The role of organizational factors in the public sector

What is the role of organizational factors in fostering regulatory reform in response to new technological development? Existing studies provide useful frameworks to understand regulatory reform in rapidly changing circumstances but still lack a systematic analysis of how organizational factors affect regulatory reform in the public sector. To fill this gap, we examine the impact of several institutional elements that are central to defining organizational characteristics, such as job tasks, bureaucratic autonomy, and organizational culture. We theorize that regulatory reform is more likely when public sector organizations are more receptive to external changes, which are determined by these characteristics. We leverage original surveys from over 1,000 civil servants in Korea, one of the front runners in new technological development, and find support for our prediction. We find that the implementation of regulatory reforms is more likely when (i) organizational tasks are relevant to scientific and technological development, (ii) higher levels of bureaucratic autonomy are granted, (iii) agency heads demonstrate stronger leadership, and (iv) organizational culture is less authoritarian. Our study makes clear contributions to the literature on public management and regulation theory, and has important implications for regulatory reform in the face of new technological development.     

Knowledge for Governance,Governance of Knowledge: Inclusive Knowledge Management in Collaborative Governance Processes

ABSTRACT

Different ways of knowing (WOKs) present in governance processes easily give rise to controversies and conflicts and forestall collective action. To resolve these conflicts it is necessary to understand what constitutes a WOK and how we can organize inclusion through collaborative governance. This paper argues that WOKs contain different knowledge elements: they contain different bodies of factual knowledge, formulate specific knowledge questions, and prefer different methods and knowledge institutes. WOKs also encompass different frames, interpretations, or normative perceptions of reality. And finally, different WOKs make use of different sources and types of organizing capacity.

Realizing successful collaborative governance processes means organizing inclusion of these different components of knowledge. This paper investigates the implications of this knowledge diversity for realizing collaborative governance processes and the challenges for inclusive knowledge management—through an in-depth case study of a collaborative governance process between the Netherlands and Flanders.

We conclude that realizing inclusion between various WOKs and their knowledge components contributes to the overall success of a collaborative governance process. However, managing inclusive knowledge is as much a matter of conscious strategies as it is the result of an emergent interaction process between stakeholders, experts, and officials within various WOKs. Furthermore, although knowledge inclusion facilitates successful negotiation between stakeholders, it doesn't guarantee a successful outcome of these negotiations.     

Explaining the content of impact assessment in the United Kingdom: Learning across time,sectors, and departments

While several studies have documented how evidence‐based policy instruments affect public policy, less research has focused on what causes changes over time in the analyses mandated by the instruments, especially in Britain. Thus, we take the analytical content of a pivotal regulatory reform instrument (impact assessment) as a dependent variable, draw on learning as a conceptual framework, and explain the dynamics of learning processes across departments, policy sectors, and time. Empirically, our study draws on a sample of 517 impact assessments produced in Britain (2005–2011). Experience and capacity in different departments matter in learning processes. Guidelines also matter, but moderately so. Departments specialize in their core policy sectors when performing regulatory analysis, but some have greater analytical capacity overall. Peripheral departments invest more in impact assessment than core executive departments. The presence of a regulatory oversight body enhances the learning process. Elections have different effects, depending on the context in which they are contested. These findings contribute to the literature on regulation, policy learning, and policy instruments.     

THE USE OF RISK ANALYSIS IN FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES: AN EXPLORATION1

This paper reports on an exploratory study of the role of risk analysis in seven federal agencies concerned with health, safety, and environmental regulation. Interviews with key decision-makers suggest that the use of risk analysis has increased in recent years, but that its employment in risk management decision-making varies considerably both within given agencies and across agencies and policy areas. Despite methodological and institutional constraints, risk analysis is likely to play a greater role in the future as demands for comparative assessment of technological risks increase.     

Adaptive governance for the Internet of Things: Coping with emerging security risks

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a disruptive innovation known for its socio-economic potential, but also for generating unprecedented vulnerabilities and threats. As a dynamic sociotechnical system, the IoT comprises well-known cybersecurity risks and endemic uncertainties that arise as IoT adoption increases and the system evolves. We highlight the impact of these challenges by analyzing how insecure IoT devices pose threats to both consumer protection and the Internet's infrastructure. While recent regulatory responses are starting to target IoT security risks, crucial deficiencies – especially related to the feedback necessary to keep pace with emerging risks and uncertainties – must be addressed. We propose a model of adaptive regulatory governance that integrates the benefits of centralized risk regulatory frameworks with the operational knowledge and mitigation mechanisms developed by epistemic communities that manage day-to-day Internet security. Rather than focusing on the choice of regulatory instruments, this model builds on the “planned adaptive regulation” literature to highlight the need to systematically plan for a knowledge-sharing interface in regulatory governance design for disruptive technologies, facilitating the feedback necessary to address evolving IoT security risks.     

From government to governance: External influences on business risk management

The influence of external organizations and pressures on business risk management practices has hitherto been examined through the influence of state regulatory regimes on businesses. This article concentrates on key socio‐legal concerns about the influence of the law in social and economic life. We know that the sources of regulation and risk management are diversifying beyond the state. What we do not have is much empirically informed research about the range of sources influencing the business world and in particular the weighting of influence exercised by them. In this paper we explore the understandings regulatory actors have of the different external pressures on business risk management through an empirical study of the understandings of those in the food retail sector about the management of food safety and food hygiene risks. A broader objective is to throw some further light onto the debate about regulation within and beyond the state.     

A Knowledge‐Based Approach to Public Value Management: A Case Study of Change Implementation in Disability Services in Western Australia

This paper provides a knowledge‐based perspective to understanding public value management (PVM). As distinct from other approaches to public administration, PVM focuses on collaborative capacity building for the creation of public value. To develop the notion of PVM further, we explore the role of a knowledge‐based strategy in a case study of change implementation in 18 disability service organisations in Western Australia. Our findings show important inter‐relationships between knowledge management strategy, adopting a person‐centred approach to service provision, and sustainability of change implementation. We discuss the implications of the study for disability sector change management and for the further exploration of the strategic role of knowledge management capabilities in the study and practice of PVM in public sector administration. The paper explores the relationship between an organisation's knowledge capture and sharing systems and processes and its ability to implement change in a way that generates long‐term benefits for both public sector employees (e.g., engaging with key stakeholders to generate innovative solutions for serving client needs) and clients (i.e., increased well‐being through better service design and support).     

Regulatory impact assessment and regulatory governance in developing countries

Regulatory impact assessment (RIA) offers the means to improve regulatory decision‐making and practice. RIA involves a systematic appraisal of the costs and benefits associated with a proposed new regulation and evaluation of the performance of existing regulations. So far, the adoption of RIA has been confined mainly to OECD countries. The purpose of this article is to assess the contribution that RIA can make to ‘better regulation’ in developing countries. Results from a survey of a small number of middle‐income countries suggest that a number of developing countries apply some form of regulatory assessment, but that the methods adopted are partial in their application and are certainly not systematically applied across government. The article discusses the capacity building requirements for the adoption of RIA in developing countries, in terms of regulatory assessment skills, including data collection methods and public consultation practices. The article also proposes a framework for RIA that can be applied in low and middle‐income countries to improve regulatory decision‐making and outcomes. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Risk Assessment in Environmental Policymaking

A problem in policymaking for prevention of harm to persons and the environment concerns the probability of harm occurring—that is, the measure of risk involved. Policymakers have almost always sought to calculate the risk involved in proposed courses of action. Their methods have often been irrational and their estimates erroneous. Explicit analysis of risk to society and systematic methods for estimating it emerged with the advent of science as more reliable procedures for prediction and decision-making. However, as with many other forms of analysis, the assessment of risk has carried its own risk—namely an undue reliance on logical quantitative techniques which fail to address the root causes of public concern and apprehension. Common-sense assessments of risk tell us more what risks people regard as acceptable and risks arouse anxiety and protest. Carnage from accidents on the nation's highways arouse much less apprehension than nuclear accidents even though actual risk from automobiles is much greater than injury or death from nuclear reactors. The following paper makes the case that the art and science of risk assessment will fall short of social and political realities until the psychological and cultural aspects of risk receive more adequate attention.