Policy Target Populations and Public Participation in Agency Decision Making

Why are some government agencies more open to public input than others? Although many agree about the normative desirability of involving citizens in administrative decision making, there is significant variation across agencies in the extent of public participation. This article investigates the conditions under which public managers solicit greater public participation. We argue that, in addition to normative rationales, participation also serves instrumental considerations related to agency constituency. We draw on a rich body of literature examining participation in the policy process to develop empirically testable hypotheses about the patterns of participation in the administrative decision making of public agencies. Using data on the approaches to gathering citizen input in the budget process at four state departments—environmental protection, transportation, child protective services, and corrections—we find that the characteristics of target populations (namely, their political power and social construction) are strong predictors of an agency's openness to the public.     

浅谈公共政策制定中的公民参与

公民参与是公共政策制定过程中不可或缺的重要环节,是确保社会价值公平分配的重要途径。目前,我国公民参与公共政策的程度还比较低,一些问题还比较突出。本文通过对公共政策制定中公民参与的发展与现状的分析和研究,在此基础上找出了公共政策制定中的公民参与存在的问题,并为之完善提出积极地建议。     

Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices

In an era of democratic discontent, more and better participation in policy making has become a standard expectation. Yet it is rarely clear what counts as participation, and how the many practices loosely bundled under the label should be understood. This paper has a modest undergrowth‐clearing objective: to examine assumptions behind competing typologies of participation, and to propose a classification framework less laden by idealist notions of democracy.     

公共政策制定中的公民参与——基于杭州开放式政府决策的经验研究

随着我国政治民主化进程的推进以及公民意识的日益觉醒,公民有序参与公共政策制定过程这一议题备受学者、政府官员与民众的关注。本文特选取获得2010年中国地方政府创新奖的杭州开放式政府决策为研究对象,从公共政策制定过程视角出发,剖析杭州开放式政府决策的过程、决策特点和公民参与的形式,总结并诠释杭州市开放式政府决策的实践作法与相关经验,认为构建公共政策制定过程中的公民参与机制关键在于回答好四个问题:谁参与、参与什么、怎样参与以及参与效果如何。     

Civic Engagement and Public Policy Making in America

Larry N. Gerston, Public Policymaking in a Democratic Society: A Guide to Civic Engagement
Thomas A. Birkland, An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making
Mark E. Rushefsky, Public Policy in the United States: At the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century     

Labour Market Organisations' Participation in Swedish Public Policy–Making

Unions and employers are political actors. Besides defending their interests on the labour market they act in the political arena. In order to weaken the trade unions, neoliberal parties and employers’ organisations have tried to change existing systems in Sweden and elsewhere. Hence, the general questions being asked in this article are: Do Swedish labour market organisations still participate in (i.e. try to influence) public policy–making on a large scale? Are there any substantial differences in the degree to which unions and employers’ organisations participate or in their access and strategies of participation? In this article it is argued that while participation of labour market organisations in the old institutionalised framework has decreased, it has not vanished. Labour market organisations are also very much involved in public policy–making by informally contacting politicians and public servants. The unions have extensive contacts with politicians on all levels, but especially with the Social Democratic Party, while employers’ organisations have more intense contacts with the public administration and public servants. The overall picture being presented in this article is that labour market organisations in Sweden have not at all been left out in the cold. It is clear that Sweden is far from the British situation and still remains similar to its Scandinavian neighbours.     

Improvisation in Public Administration and Policy Making in Israel

Although improvisation stands outside of conventional models for rational policy making and Weberian administration, it is nonetheless prevalent in public life. This article argues that improvisation is both a natural consequence of bounded rationality as well as a product of cultural and personal predilections and environmental circumstances. Drawing on a number of instances of improvisation in public administration and policy making in Israel, it attempts to shed light on its uses, motives, and implications, as well as on the issues involved in considering its utility.     

对公共政策制定的政治哲学思考

公共政策制定是社会政治生活中公共决策系统的经常性活动。在现代社会,由于公共政策的巨大作用和影响,公共政策制定问题引起了广泛的关注。从政治哲学的角度审视,以公意为价值取向、以政治权力为基本依托,以政治秩序为最终归宿,才能建立起人民期待的合理、公正、有效的公共政策,从而进一步推进决策的科学化、民主化。     

Havel versus Klaus: Public Policy Making in the Czech Republic

In Central and Eastern Europe, we can observe and analyze an ongoing social experiment euphemized as the process of the transformation of totalitarian countries with centrally planned economies into democratic countries with market economies. This article offers an analysis of what has been happening in the Czech Republic in this regard. Attention is given to the impact of political philosophies (those represented by names of Václav Havel and Václav Klaus) upon legal and institutional changes. Key terms for better understanding of these processes are the free market, civil society, civic sector, and participation of citizens in public affairs. Channels, developmental threats, and opportunities for public policy formation and implementation are studied as well.     

扩大公共政策过程中的公民参与

在现代民主社会中 ,公民拥有公共政策主体和客体的双重身份 ,但对于公共政策过程中的公民参与和管理的重视还远远不够。因此 ,本文拟从背景、功能、现状及存在问题和对策等几个方面 ,对公共政策过程中的公民参与加以论述 ,以启发对这一问题的重新思考和认识。     

Valuing Policy Alternatives: A Generalization

Those interested in political phenomena such as voting havefound random utility models, originally developed for decisionssuch as transportation choice, especially attractive, as theunderlying model can yield a statistical model with a few simple,realistic assumptions. Unfortunately, such models have provendifficult to apply to situations with more than two votes andthree alternatives or an unknown cutpoint. Additionally, aswe show, standard applications of such models to voting, whileproducing consistent parameter estimates, yield standard errorsthat are too small and, due to a failure to employ all relevanttheoretical information, biased ideal point estimates. We specifya general model applicable to any number of votes and alternatives,with correct standard errors and unbiased ideal point estimates.We apply this model to a number of cases studied by previousscholars involving legislative voting over the minimum wage:(1) when there are two votes and two known cutpoints (K. Krehbieland D. Rivers, American Journal of Political Science, 1988,32, 1151–1174); (2) when there are three votes and threeknown cutpoints (J. Wilkerson, American Journal of PoliticalScience, 1991, 35, 613–623); and (3) when there are threevotes but where one cutpoint is unknown given a lack of knowledgeabout the impact of a policy (J. Wilkerson, American Journalof Political Science, 1991, 35, 613–623) or the possibilityof sophisticated voting (C. Volden, Journal of Politics, 1998,60, 149–173). We show that in various contexts our analysisimproves on existing methods, yielding consistent and efficientideal point estimates and a better-fitting model with improvedpredictive accuracy.     

公众参与公共政策过程的三种模式比较—基于服务型政府理论

公众参与公共政策过程是公众表达个人偏好实现自我利益的重要渠道,也是公众自我意识觉醒的重要标志.从当前服务型政府理论框架出发,分析服务型政府的内涵、特征,提出三种公众参与模式,即:"公众一利益集团"参与模式、"公众-决策者"参与模式和"公众-精英"参与模式.适合我国当前服务型政府理论和实践的应是"公众-决策者"参与模式.这可以从四个方面证实:"公众-决策者"参与模式是服务型政府彻底实现以人为本政府的重要途径,是服务型政府完成任务和使命的必由之路,是促进与公众融合的重要方法,是增强政府责任意识的直接方法.     

走向更有序的公共行动：数智时代公众政策参与的质态变迁

数智时代的到来既推动了社会秩序和社会治理模式的变迁,也重塑了公众政策参与的秩序,为获取“民意最大公约数”创设了更多的条件。大数据因其相关性的思维方式、“允许不精确”的数据逻辑和全样本的数据采集方式生成了意见聚合的新能量,云计算平台、网络载体与应用软件生成了话语表达的新动力,区块链、虚拟现实与数字孪生技术成为生成行动秩序的新载体,但是仍需对数智技术在理性失灵、公众参与衰落及公众地位差异等方面可能存在的问题保持警醒,从而使其在公共政策参与行动的秩序层面产生增量,实现技术工具性与治理目的性合一。     

我国转型时期第三部门的公共政策参与

我国目前正处于一个由传统社会向现代社会整体转型时期,在这一时期,第三部门作为公民社会的载体,正逐步成长。同时,转型时期的社会结构和利益格局的变化加剧了矛盾与冲突,也对公共政策形成了多方面的压力。随着我国民主政治的不断完善,公民通过第三部门参与公共政策过程,可以实现建立广泛而有理性的政治参与机制,保证政策信息的充分性,为公共政策执行提供有力的保障并为政策调整提供重要的依据等。目前,我国第三部门公共政策参与不足的现状可以通过政府观念的转变、第三部门自身参与能力的提升、健全立法和完善参与制度安排等来实现。     

Network Governance and Public Participation in Policy‐Making: Federal Community Cabinets in Australia

The Australian Labor Party's (ALP) 2007 Policy Platform asserted ‘Labor will pursue new and innovative measures designed to foster greater participation and engagement of the Australian population in the political process’ ( Manwaring 2010 ). As such they seemed to have a clear commitment to a more participatory form of democracy. This commitment appeared to be reflected in two initiatives they introduced in power: the 2020 Summit (on this see Fawcett, Manwaring and Marsh 2011 ) and federal community cabinets. More broadly it could be argued that Labor were following a trend identified internationally as a move from government to governance, more specifically to ‘network governance’ (Rhodes 1997) in which governments encouraged greater participation in policy‐making, recognising that governments could at best steer, not row. Indeed, as Marinetto contends ( 2003 : 593), this idea has taken on a ‘semblance of orthodoxy’ in discussions of public policy.     

公共政策的合法性:基于制定程序的视角

公共政策的制定程序为政策主体设置了决策步骤与职业规范,为政策实体提供了技术支撑与制度保障。立足合法性的基本含义,程序的合法性首先体现为程序之于实体合法性的基础与保障功能。其次,合法性赋予公众价值主体与评判主体的地位,要求政策程序遵循科学性、民主性的价值标准,以实现公众的权利诉求。再次,政策的技术与制度程序在各自层面遵循科学性、民主性的标准,也对程序乃至实体的合法性产生积极影响。     

The Case for a Participation Income: Acknowledging and Valuing the Diversity of Social Participation

Anthony Atkinson's idea of a participation income draws attention to the various ways in which people contribute to society. Current discussions on social participation go beyond paid work to include volunteering, education, and caregiving to kin. With the idea of the participation income, various forms of contribution can be highlighted and acknowledged. This article investigates how the idea of a participation income is reflected in Danish, Finnish, German and Dutch social policies. It shows that different elements of a participation income are incorporated in active labour market policies: Denmark adopted a narrow focus on paid work; Finland seeks tailor‐made solutions for the long‐term unemployed; Germany reformed many policy areas to achieve a better activation; and the Netherlands acknowledges a wide range of social participation forms. These country differences highlight that governments can adapt the idea of a participation income to achieve the focus they desire.