Professorship of Forest Policy and Forest Resource Economics
COST FP 1207 WG1
Working Group Meeting
Prof. Dr. Norbert Weber
Prague, November 13-14, 2013
Introduction
•
•
•
•
Welcome
Minute taker
List of attendees
Adoption of the agenda
Agenda
1. Discussion of presentations and posters (special
purpose of the meeting)
2. Publication strategy
– Country reports (synthesis reports)
– State-of-the-art report
– Special Issue in JFPE
3. Forest terminology and semantic wiki
4. AOB
27.07.2016
4
27.07.2016
5
Country-related synthesis reports
•
•
•
•
General information
Forest-related policy research
Forest legislation and policy (actors, issues)
Forest-related policy transposition (NFP, Natura 2000, EU
Forest Strategy, EU Timber regulation…)
• Further aspects (e.g. distinction between forest-focused and
forest-related issues)
27.07.2016
6
Setting of WG 1
• Forest-related policy targets and measures:
– qualitative research on the implementation of forest-related
policy targets and measures (state-of-art by the
international expert team and country reports by national
teams);
– recommendations to deal with vertical and horizontal
subsidiarity;
– interaction with WG2 for the formulation of the
requirements for policy modelling and analysis tools.
What is our common interest in WG 1?
Forest-related policy targets and measures:
– qualitative research on the implementation of forest-related
policy targets and measures (state-of-art by the
international expert team and country reports by national
teams);
– recommendations to deal with vertical and horizontal
subsidiarity;
– interaction with WG2 for the formulation of the
requirements for policy modeling and analysis tools.
STSM
Short Term Scientific Mission for COST Action FP1207
• Authors: Dr. Luc Boerboom* (valentina.ferretti@polito.it),
Johann Rathke***, MSc (Johann.Rathke@forst.tu-dresden.de)
l.g.j.boerboom@utwente.nl) and Dr. Valentina Ferretti** (
• Title: Forest policy and policy science: mapping policy
concepts and theoretical perspectives
• Part 1: Development of concept domains. Applicant Dr.
Luc Boerboom
• Part 2: Elaboration of concept domains into concept
maps. Applicant Dr. Valentina Ferretti
27.07.2016
9
Policy analysis might result in uncomfortable news…
Excerpt from the protocol of WG 1 meeting on 18 June
2013
d) Special issue
• Selected scientific papers according to the COST Action’s
topic shall be collected in a special issue of the Journal of
Forest Policy and Economics. Therefore, a WG meeting is
planned for November 2013.
27.07.2016
11
27.07.2016
15
AOB
•
•
•
•
27.07.2016
Looking for further contributions for the special issue?
Country reports
STSM ideas
Time and venue of the next meeting
16
27.07.2016
17
Tasks of WG 1 – to be elaborated more in detail
Outcome-oriented issues
• Identifying best practices and gaps in forest policy formulation
and evaluation on national/subnational level
• Assessing processes around forest policy in multi-level
systems (pan-European - EU – national - subnational)
Research-oriented issues
• state of the art in forest policy analysis in the participating
countries
• Recommendations for modelling forest policy processes
– Agent-based modelling?
– …
Next steps
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
27.07.2016
Call for participation in the working group
Selection of international experts
Selection of national experts
One-page info for national members (using text from the
MoUs)
Defining requirements for WGs
Workshop “policy targets and measures” to be held in 2013
Special issue “state of the art and country reports”
Identifying candidates and themes for the STSMs
19
COST FP 1207 ORCHESTRA:
WG 1 Forest-related policy targets and measures
27.07.2016
20
Working Group 1: Reporting System
27.07.2016
21
27.07.2016
22
Bypassing national forest policy
Rathke 2013
Policy Research and Analysis
Paradigms
Major
Objective
“Client”
Academic
Social
Science
Research
Construct
theories for
understanding
society
“Truth,” as
defined by the
disciplines,
other scholars
Policy
Research
Predict
impacts of
changes in
variables that
can be altered
by public
policy
Policy
Analysis
Systematic
comparison
and
evaluation of
alternatives
available to
public actors
for solving
social
problems
Policy Evaluation
Actors in the
policy arena;
the related
disciplines
Specific
person or
institution as
decision
maker
Common
Style
Rigorous
methods for
constructing
and testing
theories;
usually
retrospective
Application of
formal
methodology
to policyrelevant
questions;
prediction of
consequences
Time
Constraints
General
Weakness
Rarely
external time
constraints
Often
irrelevant to
information
needs of
decision
makers
Sometimes
deadline
pressure,
perhaps
mitigated by
issue
recurrence
Difficulty in
translating
findings into
government
action
Synthesis of
existing
research and
theory to
predict
consequences
of alternative
policies
Strong
deadline
pressure—
completion of
analysis
usually tied to
specific
decision
Myopia
resulting from
client
orientation
and time
pressure
Weimer & Vining 2011, modified
Professorship of Forest Policy and Forest Resource Economics
Thank you for your attention!
•nweber@forst.tu-dresden.de
(Weimer & Vining, 1992)
PROBLEM ANALYSIS
SOLUTION ANALYSIS
1. Understanding the
problem
4. Choosing
evaluation criteria
(a) Receiving the
problem:
assessing the
symptoms.
(b) Framing the problem:
analyzing market and
government failures.
(c) Modeling the
problem:
identifying
policy
2. Choosing
and
explaining
variables.
relevant
goals and
constraints.
5. Specifying policy
alternatives
6. Evaluating:
predicting impacts
of alternatives and
valuing them in
terms of criteria
COMMUNICATION
Conveying useful
Advice to clients
7. Recommending
actions.
3. Choosing a solution
method.
INFORMATION GATHERING
Identifying and organizing relevant
data, theories and facts; using facts as
evidence about future consequences
of current and alternative policies.
Figure 8.1:
A summary of
Steps in the
Rationalist Mode
Weimer & Vining 2011
Weimer & Vining 2011
Theories of the Policy-making Process
• The first generation of policy-making process
theories
– Scientific-rational model
– Incrementalist model
– Garbage can model
• The second generation of policy-making
process theories
–
–
–
–
–
Comprehensive rational model
The stages heuristic model
New Institutionalism model
The multiple stream model
The discourse model
Perspectives and Processes in Policy Studies
Policy
Making
Analytic-Technical
Perspective
Interpretive-Political Critical-Discursive
Perspective
Perspective
Comprehensive
Rational Model
Political Approach


New
institutionalism
State Theory
Multi-Stream &
Policy window
Approach
Discourse
Approach

Argumentation

Frame

Rhetoric

Narrative
Processes for sustainable development
and the international forest regime
http://www.fao.org/forestry/13551-02fc7911f88b28bc54b804ba382712c38.gif
International Forest Regime Complex
UNFF
F
F
WTO free trade-regime
F
Fragmented
IFR-C
F
FOREST
UN-CBD-regime
F
F
F
Other implicit and
explicit rules, norms
and principles
relating to forests
UN-FCCC-regime
Giessen 2011
Excursion: Intensity of forest discourses
Arts et al. 2010
Policy science is about recognizing
patterns…
Forest Strategy 2050
for Saxony
Forest Strategy 2050 for Saxony
Background
– International Year of Forests 2011
– Forest Strategy 2020 of the Federal Government
(adopted in 2011)
Rationale
– demonstration of solutions to reconcile the
natural potential of Saxonian forests and the
expected societal demands
Waldstrategie 2050 Sachsen
– Strategy of the Saxonian Government
Forest Strategy 2050 for Saxony (2)
Developed on the basis of …
– Actual results of science and research
– Opinions of the Landesforstwirtschaftsrat
– Opinions of further partners with economic and
social interests affected by the strategy
Waldstrategie 2050 Sachsen
Forest Strategy 2050: Fields of action
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Forest area
Forest ownership
Forest structure
Continuity of forest functions
Potential of wood from forests
Forest and nature conservation
Forest and recreation
Forest and employment
Forest and innovation
Forest and environmental education
General orientation for forests and forestry
Waldstrategie 2050 Sachsen
„Your opinion towards the Forest
Strategy 2050“
All citizens are welcome to Communicate their opinion to
the State Ministry of Environment and Agriculture until April
30, 2013
participation on level two
Groups of actors influencing forest policies
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ministeries, Authorities, Administrations
Forest Owners and Landowners‘ Associations
Associations of the Forest and Paper Industries
Associations of Forest Professionals and Trade Unions
Hunting Associations
Environmental and Nature Conservation Organizations
•
•
•
•
Regional planning
Tourism and sports
Water supply
Further organizations
Participation in Nature Conservation
opinions
Expert Opinion
(§57 (1) SächsNatSchG)
Nomination for the members
of the advisory board
Authorities for Nature Conservation
Chair/
manageme
nt
SMUL
(oberste
NatSchBehörde
)
Landesdirektion
Sn
(obere
NatSchBehörde)
Landratsämter/
Kreisfreie Städte
(untere
NatSchBehörde)
Briefing
Composition
(Members,
Appointment)
Chaired by the respective head of the nature
conservation
Advisory
Boardsagency
for Nature
Conservation
Level of substate level
conservation
agenciesN
Justification in case of
nonconsideration
Saxony
(according to § 56
SächsNatSchG)
Gui
dance
Accredited
organisations of
Nature Conservation
Projects,
plans,
administrativ
e procedures
Representation
Opitions /
right to sue
Working Group
Conservation (LAG)
Veterinarians
Animal Protection
Nature Conservation
Fisheries
Hunter Profressionals
Hunting Science
Forestry
Agriculture
Hunting Cooperatives
Hunting communities
for certain animal
species
Hunters
State
Ministry
of Environment and Agriculture
Advisory
Board
for Hunting
Highest hunting authority
advisory funkction
Advisory Board for Hunting
Strategic alliance:
Concerted opinion against the draft of the new
hunting act
- Saxonian forest owners‘ association
- Landowners‘ association
- Saxonian Forestry Association
- Forestry Professionals
- PEFC Saxony
- Association of ecological hunting
- Working group on close-to-nature forestry
- Environmental NGO for forests
- Environmental NGO (Saxonian group of FoE)
- local NGO
Quelle: Forst und Holz Nr. 20, 1998
Forest Policy Program of Saxony, 1998
• Elaborated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests
• Consisted of general principles and objectives of the Saxonian
forest policy
• Multifunctional forestry as sustainable, close-to-nature and
environmental friendly land use
• Preservation of forests as principal aim
• Mulit-functional forestry includes sustainability, equal ranking
and simultaneity of forest functions
Parlamentarische Exkursion 21.09.2011
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Im Staatsbetrieb Sachsenforst waren zum
1.12. 2009 insgesamt 1541 Mitarbeiter fest
oder befristet (davon acht auf Projekt- und
acht auf Drittmittelstellen) sowie in Ausbildungsverhältnissen
(167, davon 141 Auszubildende
zum Forstwirt, zwei Auszubildende
zum Gärtner in den Forstbaumschulen, zwei
Auszubildende zum Zootierpfleger im Wildgehege
Moritzburg sowie zehn Referendare
und zwölf Forstinspektoranwärter) beschäftigt
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nach dem Beschäftigtenstatus handelte es
sich dabei um 334 Beamte, 379 TV-L-Beschäftigte
1 sowie 661 TV-Forst-Beschäftigte 2.
Bei rechnerischer Berücksichtigung der Teilzeitbeschäftigung,
insbesondere wegen des
bis 31. 12. 2010 geltenden Bezirkstarifvertrages
im Bereich des TV-Forst, ergeben sich
daraus 1261,81 Vollzeitäquivalente.
Forest Policy in Germany
•
The Federal Republic of Germany is a federal state. Responsibility
for the forests thus mainly lies with the Länder (the regional state).
While the Federal Government merely sets the forest policy
framework, the Länder are responsible for the formulation and
implementation of concrete forest policy targets. Federal
responsibility falls under the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and
Consumer Protection (BMELV) its objective is to secure the positive
development of forestry and the timber industry in order to benefit the
climate, quality of life, innovation and jobs.
Lawrence & Dudley 2012
•
•
SBS: 1515 Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in zwölf Schutzgebieten und drei
Schutzgebietsverwaltungen
108 Staatswald und 63 Privat- und Körperschaftswaldreviere
SBS, Geschäftsbericht 2010
Einbettung und Abgrenzung der
Ressourcenpolitik Holz
BAFU Schweiz 2008
EDM 6209
Policy Study in Education
7
Policy Process Study:
Policy-Making Study
Perspectives and Processes in Policy Studies
Analytic-Technical
Perspective
Policy
Making
Policy
Implementation
Policy
Evaluation
Interpretive-Political Discursive-Critical
Perspective
Perspective
Theories of the Policy-making Process
• The first generation of policy-making process
theories
– Scientific-rational model
– Incrementalist model
– Garbage can model
• The second generation of policy-making
process theories
–
–
–
–
–
Comprehensive rational model
The stages heuristic model
New Institutionalism model
The multiple stream model
The discourse model
Policy-making Theory I: Comprehensive
Rationalist Perspective
•
Comprehensive rational framework: The
ideal-typical framework
– Problem analysis
• Pathology control approach
• Desirability striving approach
– Comprehensive information gathering
– Solution analysis
• Best solution approach
• Satisfice approach
Policy-making Theory I: Comprehensive
Rationalist Perspective
• Harold Lasswells’ intelligence system for policy making
–
Intelligence: The stage of intelligence collection, which
consists of
•
•
•
•
Information of the status quo of the phenomenon to be
intervene
Information of causal relations among vital constituents in
operation within the policy phenomenon
Information of the feasibility of candidate solutions
Cost-benefit analysis of candidate solutions
Policy-making Theory I: Comprehensive
Rationalist Perspective
• Harold Lasswells’ intelligence system for policy making
–
–
–
–
–
–
Promotion: The stage of considering the pros and cons of
candidate solutions
Prescription: The stage of making decision on the prescription
of the course of action to be taken
Invocation: The stage of laying down the rules and regulations
based upon which the policy prescriptions can be invoked
Application: The stage of carrying out the course of action
stipulated in the policy by the designated authority.
Termination: The stage of bringing the course of action to a
close as designed
Appraisal: The stage of evaluating the effectiveness or/even
efficiency of the policy measures.
(Weimer & Vining, 1992)
PROBLEM ANALYSIS
SOLUTION ANALYSIS
1. Understanding the
problem
4. Choosing
evaluation criteria
(a) Receiving the
problem:
assessing the
symptoms.
(b) Framing the problem:
analyzing market and
government failures.
(c) Modeling the
problem:
identifying
policy
2. Choosing
and
explaining
variables.
relevant
goals and
constraints.
5. Specifying policy
alternatives
6. Evaluating:
predicting impacts
of alternatives and
valuing them in
terms of criteria
COMMUNICATION
Conveying useful
Advice to clients
7. Recommending
actions.
3. Choosing a solution
method.
INFORMATION GATHERING
Identifying and organizing relevant
data, theories and facts; using facts as
evidence about future consequences
of current and alternative policies.
Figure 8.1:
A summary of
Steps in the
Rationalist Mode
Policy-making Theory II: Political
Perspective
• Criticism on comprehensive rational framework by
incrementalism and the introduction of political
rationality into the policy process study
• Conceptual difference between political rationality and
means-end rationality
–
–
Means-end rationality refers to agency that a person acts in
a conscious and knowledgeable “way in which the
attainment of his goal can be maximized in the real world.”
(Dahl & Lindblom, 1992, p.57)
Political rationality refers to the agency that the person will
make conscious and knowledgeable consideration of the
political reality and its entailed constraints and
opportunities, within which the maximization of the meansto-an-end / satisfice project is carried out.
•
Policy-making Theory II: Political
The new institutionalism framework of decision-making study
Perspective
– New institutionalism can be characterized as approaches in
social science “developed in reaction to the behavioural
perspectives that were influential during the 1960s and 1970s and
all seeks to elucidate the role that institutions play in the
determination of social and political outcome.” (Hall & Taylor,
1996, p. 936)
– As these approaches apply to public policy study, it emerges as a
reaction to the means-end rational calculation model and argues
that policy making process is not a pre-dominant rational
calculating process. They asserted that policy making processes
should be conceived predominantly as institutional processes;
hence they are by definition influenced if not determined by the
features, structures and cultures of the institutions, in which the
policy making processes are supposed to undergo.
•
Policy-making Theory II: Political
The
new institutionalism framework of decisionPerspective
making study
– Decision-making as rule following: The logic of
appropriateness
• James March’s thesis of dual bases of decision
making
– Decision-making as rational calculation of preferences and self-interests
governed by the Logic Consequence
– Decision-making as rule following governed by the Logic of Appropriateness
•
Policy-making Theory II: Political
The
new institutionalism framework of
Perspective
decision-making study
– The logic of appropriateness…
• Logic of appropriateness:
“When individuals and organizations fulfill identities,
they follow rules or procedures that they see as
appropriate to the situation in which they find
themselves. Neither preference as they are normally
conceived nor expectations of future consequences
enter directly into the calculus.” (March, 1994, p. 57)
•
Policy-making Theory II: Political
The
new institutionalism framework of decisionPerspective
making study
– The logic of appropriateness…
• Three basic questions in decision-making under the
logic of appropriateness: (p.58)
– The question of recognition: What kind of situation is this?
– The question of identity: What kind of person am I? Or what kind of organization
is this?
– The question of rules: What does a person such as I, or an organization such as
this, do in a situation as this?
•
Policy-making Theory II: Political
The new institutionalism framework of decision-making
Perspective
study
– Pluralism: The simple institutional model
• The general political system model: Pluralism as a theory of
policy making or politics in general is generated from the political
system model. In political system model, political process is
characterized as input-process-output-feedback model.
• Pluralistic model characterizes the policy making with the
following attributes
– Plurality of interest groups each with equal capacities in inputting
political demands into the polity
– The polity processes the plurality of political demands in impartial
and indiscriminant manner
– Plurality of administrative output to meet with plurality of political
demands
•
Policy-making
Theory
II:
Political
The new institutionalism framework of decision-making
Perspective
study
– The action arena model (Ostrom, Gardner, and
Walker, 1994): The action arena model reformulates
the pluralist model by asserting that political actors
in policy making process are not totally free and
autonomous individuals but are confined in action
arenas
•
Actors in action arena are endowed with different
resources and information. They also bring with different
valuation into the arena. As a result, different actors may
and mostly will select different course of actions.
•
Policy-making
Theory
II:
Political
The new institutionalism framework of decision-making
Perspective
study
– The action arena model
• Within an action arena a particular action situation will be
constituted. The constituents of an action situation may
includes
–
–
–
–
The set of participants
The specific positions to be filled by participants
The set of allowable actions and their linkage to outcome
The potential outcomes that are linked to individual
sequence of actions
– The level of control each participant has over choice
– The costs and benefits, which serve as incentives and
deterrents, assigned to actions and outcomes
Physical/Material
Conditions
Action Arena
Attributes of
Community
Action
Situations
Patterns of
Interactions
Actors
Evaluative
Criteria
Rules-in-Use
Outcomes
Figure 3.1 A Framework for Institutional Analysis
SOURCE: Adapted from Ostrom, Gardner, and Walker (1994, p. 37).
(Sabatier, 1999, Figure 3.1)
•
Policy-making Theory II: Political
The new institutionalism framework of decision-making
Perspective
study
–
–
The policy network model
This model characterizes that policy actors in policy making
process are not act separately and independently. They will
form networks and communities on the base of common
policy focus, shared policy stance, related vested policy
interest.
Advocacy coalition model
This model further specifies that the networking among
policy actors in policy making process by put forth the
concept of advocacy coalition. It indicates that policy actors
will form coalition in order to advocate a particular policy
choice. These coalitions will subsequently constitute a
stabilizing parameter or institutional inertia within a policy
area.
RELATIVELY STABLE
PERAMETERS
1. Basic attributes of
the problem area
(good)
Degree of
consensus
needed for
major policy
change
2. Basic distribution of
natural resources
3. Fundamental sociocultural values and
social structure
4. Basic Constitutional
structure (rules)
EXTERNAL (SYSTEM)
EVENTS
1. Changes in socioeconomic
conditions
2. Changes in public
opinion
Constraints
And
Resources
Of
Subsystem
POLICY SUBSYSTEM
Coalition A Policy Coalition
B
a. Policy
beliefs
Brokersa. Policy
beliefs
b. Resources
b. Resources
Strategy
Strategy
A1 re
B1 re
guidance
guidance
instrument
instrument
s
Decisions sby
Governmental
Authorities
Institutional Rules, Resource
Allocations, and Appointments
Actors
Policy Outputs
Policy Impacts
3. Changes in
systemic governing
coalition
4. Policy decisions
(Sabatier, 1999, Figure 6.4)
•
Policy-making Theory II: Political
The
state theory
Perspective
State theorists criticize pluralism and political system
of treating the state as a blackbox or an impartial
arbitrator of political demands. In replacement, they
put forth different thesis on the natures and features
of the modern state
–
–
–
The instrumental-state perspective
The corporatist-state perspective
The derivative-state perspective
(To be explicated in details in Topic 10)
•
Policy-Making Theory III: Multiple
The approach grows out of the Garbage Can Model, which
Approach
isStream
another alternate
policy-process model to the scientific-
rational model in the 1970s. The primary assumption of the
model is the emphasis on the ambiguity nature of the policy
phenomena.
• By ambiguity, it refers to “a state of having many way of
thinking about the same circumstances or phenomena.”
(Feldman, 1989, quoted in Zahariadis, 1999, p.74) The
concept of ambiguity differs from the concept of uncertainty,
which is one of the constituent concept in rational model, is
that uncertainty can be reduced or even eliminated by
information and analysis of it, while ambiguity on policy
phenomena cannot be reduced by information but in some
case may even enhance it.
Policy-Making Theory III: Multiple Stream
Approach
• Another essential assumption of the approach is that policy
issues or even problems are not attended in an analyticrational way as the scientific-rational model assumes. The
garbage-can and multiple-stream models stress that the
logic of approaching policy issue is temporal sorting and
not rational choice.
“Who pays attention to what and when is critical. Time is a
unique, scarce resource. Because the primary concern of
decision-makers …is to manage time effectively rather than
manage tasks. It is reasonable to pursue a lens (approach)
that accords significance to time rather than to rationality.”
(Zahariadis, 1999, p.74)
Policy-Making Theory III: Multiple Stream
Approach
• John Kingdon’s three streams in policy making
–
Problem: It refers to the conditions or mechanism on which policy
makers identify, define and take action on a policy problem. They
include
•
•
•
–
Policy: It refers to the conditions spawned from the policy issues or
phenomena themselves. They include
•
•
–
Indicators
Dramatic events or crisis
Feedback of existing programs
Policy ideas generated from policy communities
The prospect of technical feasibility and value acceptability of the policy
itself
Politics: It refers to the conditions grow out of the political
environment. They include
•
•
National mood
Legislative and executive turnover
Policy-Making Theory III: Multiple
Approach
– Stream
The conception
of the coupling of the streams and the
• John Kingdon’s three streams in policy making
formation of “policy window”. Kingdon signifies that when
the three streams are joined together at critical moments in
time, they will constitute a “policy window”. As a “policy
window” opens, it indicates that the policy issue will elevate
into a policy agenda and sequent policy-making steps will
materialized.
Policy-making Theory IV: Discourse
In discursive perspective, policy making is construed as
Perspective
language game of persuasion and argumentation. Hence,
policy-making studies are analyses of how different
parties concerned frame, organize and possibly win the
argumentation in a policy discourse.
• Formal argument model in policy analysis
– Constituents in formal argument model (William Dunn)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Claim
Information
Warrant
Backing
Qualifier
Rebuttal
I
therefore
C
Policy-relevant
Information is the
beginning of a
policy argument
Claim affirms that
the policy
conclusion
is true
since
W
Warrant justifies
the movement
from I to C
C becomes I
in a sequent
argument
The Logical Structure of Policy Argument
therefore
I
C
Mother tongue
Instruction (MTI)
enhance learning
effectiveness
MTI for all
in compulsory
education
since
W
Findings of
International Studies
in Educational Achievement (IEA)
for Science
C becomes I
in a sequent
argument
The Logical Structure of Policy Argument
I
therefore
Q
Qualifier indicates
that the claim has
a given plausibility
Policy-relevant
Information is the
beginning of a
policy argument
since
W
C
Claim affirms that
the policy
conclusion is
true as qualified
unles
s
R
Rebuttal indicates
Warrant justifies
the movement that special conditions,
exceptions, or
from I to C
qualifications to
W, or I reduce the
plausibility of C
because
C becomes I
in a sequent
argument
B
Backing
justifies W
The Logical Structure of Policy Argument
I
therefore
Q
On what subjects?
At what levels?
MTI enhance
learning
effectiveness
since
W
Findings of
IEA
for Science
C
MTI for all
in compulsory
education
unles
s
R
Not in English
Not at more advanced
levels
C becomes I
in a sequent
argument
because
B
Backing
justifies W
The Logical Structure of Policy Argument
I
therefore
Q
C
Most of independent
MTI for all
States adopt
in compulsory
MTI
education
MTI enhance
learning
effectiveness
unles
s
since
W
R
UNESCO
1953 Document
Not in most of
post-colonial
states
C becomes I
in a sequent
argument
because
B
Backing
justifies W
The Logical Structure of Policy Argument
Policy Argumentation: Interpretive
• Formal argument model in policy analysis
Approach
– Constituents in formal argument model (William Dunn)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Claim
Information
Warrant
Backing
Qualifier
Rebuttal
– Types of argumentative claims
• Designative claims on facts
• Evaluative claims on values
• Advocative claims on actions
Policy Argumentation: Interpretive
• Interpretive
approach to policy argument
Approach
– Deep description of arguments of different interpretive
communities
–
Constituents of the architecture of argumentation and the
textuality of argumentative/persuasive texts
• Genre
• Frame
• Rhetoric
• Narrative
•
The Conception of Genre in Critical
Concept
of genre
Discourse
Analysis
– “A genre is a group of texts that share specific discursive
features.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.163).
– Genre means “distinctions within convention …between text
types.” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 13) More specifically, Fairclough
defines “genre as socially ratified way of using language in
connection with a particular type of social activities,”
(Fairclough, 1997, p. 14) e.g. interview, narrative, exposition,
argumentation, persuasion.
– Accordingly policy text and/or discourse can mainly be
construed as argumentative and/or persuasive genre of text
and/or discourse.
•
The Conception of Genre in Critical
Concept
of genre
Discourse
Analysis
– According to Richard Edwards and his associates persuasive
text may take the following forms
• Deliberative genre: It refers to policy discourse which is
“associate with policy and its future orientated and speculative.”
(Edwards et al., 2004, p.19) For example, in documents relating to
recent education reform, they commonly refer to the future of
global-informational economy and network society and how
education reform should prepare students to fit into new species
of flexible and workers and/or networkers.
• Forensic genre: It refers to policy discourse which “focuses on
past events and attempt to provide an account that is taken to be
true.” (ibid) For example, the rhetoric of presenting data of
declining standards in comparative educational research and
statistics of falling competitiveness of national economy in global
market can be construed as a kind of forensic genre.
•
The Conception of Genre in Critical
Concept
of genre
Discourse
Analysis
– According to Richard Edwards and his associates persuasive
text may take the following forms
• Epideictic genre: It refers to policy discourse which focuses on
the contemporary. However, in epideictic genre one can usually
find “the notion of ‘naming and shaming’, publicly denouncing
organizations and individuals who fail to meet the quality
standards and inspection criteria to which they are subject.” (ibid)
For example, blaming on teachers, naming negative value-added
schools, and shaming failing schools.
•
Conception of Frame in Policy
Law
and Rein define frame “as a way of representing
Studies
knowledge, and as the reliance on (and development of)
interpretative schemas that bound and order a chaotic
situation, facilitate interpretation and provide a guide
for doing and acting.” (Law and Rein, 2003, p.173)
•
Conception of Frame in Policy
The
concept of frame finds its scholarly resonance in
Studies
the well-documented concept of “definition of situation”
in symbolic interactionism. As Law and Rein quote in
length of Goffman’s exposition
“I assume that when individuals attend to any current
situation, they face the question: ‘What is going on
here?’ Whether asked explicitly, as in times of
confusion and doubt, or tacitly, during occasions of
usual certitude, the question is put and the answer to it
is presumed by the way the individual then proceeds to
get on with the affairs at hand.” (Quoted in Law & Rein,
p. 175)
Conception of Frame in Policy Studies
• The functions of frames in policy argumentation are to
(Law & Rein, p. 174)
–
–
–
–
“note a special type of story that focuses attention”
“provide stability and structure by narrating a problemcentred discourse as evolves over time,”
“define the boundary between evidence and noise”,
“wed fact and value into belief about how to act”
Conception of Frame in Policy Studies
• Types of policy frame
– Rhetoric frame
– Action frame
• Policy action frame: It refers to “the frame an institutional
actor uses to construct the problem of a specific policy
situation.”
• Institutional action frame: It indicates the frame held by
institutions. This signifies that as agents of thought and
action, institutions possess characteristics point of view,
prevailing system of beliefs, category scheme, images,
routines and styles of argument and action, all of which
inform their action frames.” (Schon & Rein, 1994, p.33)
Conception of Frame in Policy Studies
• Framing HKSAR education reform
– Lifelong learning for employability and competitiveness
– Lifelong learning for social inclusion and political empowerment
• Framing Quality Education
– Quality for analytic-technical control
– Quality for communal understanding of trust and care
– Quality for potential emancipation
• Framing MOI policy
–
–
–
–
MOI policy as issue of learning effectiveness
MOI policy as issue of nation-building
MOI policy as issue of social capital formation
MOI policy as issue of human right
Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies
• Meanings of rhetoric: Rhetoric has a long history in
Western literary as well as philosophical traditions. It
can be traced back to Aristotle.
– Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the ability to see, in any given
case, the available means of persuasion.” (Aristotle, 1991,
quoted in Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p. 155)
– Wharley defines it as “the findings of suitable arguments to
prove a given point, and the skillful arrangement of them.”
(Whately, 1963, quoted in Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p. 155)
Conception
of Rhetoric
• Meanings
of rhetoric:
in Policy Studies
– A dictionary definition of rhetoric is that it is “the art of using
language so as to persuade or influence others.” (Edwards et
al. 2004, p.3) Hence, Rhetorical analysis involves the study of
the ways in which we attempt to persuade or influence in our
discursive, textual and gestural practices. (Edwards et al., 2004,
p.13) Hence, “part of the job of the rhetoric analyst is to
determine how constructions of ‘the real’ are made persuasive”
(Simon, 1990; quoted in Edwards et al., 2004, p. 13) “Here the
question is not so much about whether reality matches
rhetoric or not, but which fabrications of the real are more
persuasive and why.” (Edwards, et al., 2004, p.13)
– As for the case of educational discourse, rhetoric analysis
aims to explore and reveal “hidden rhetoric aspect to
educational discourse.” (Edwards et al., 2004, p. 9)
• Constituents
of rhetoric
performance:
It hasStudies
been
Conception
of Rhetoric
in Policy
identified by analysts of rhetoric that there are several
essential constituents for a rhetoric performance, i.e. to
make rhetoric persuasive. They are
– Context: Rhetoric by definition is pragmatic in nature, i.e. it
“responds to or interacts with societal issues or problems, and
it produces some action upon or change in the world.” (Gill &
Whedbee, 1997, p.161). Therefore, in order to be
comprehended and/or critically analyzed the rhetoric in a
policy text, it must be set against the context (temporal, sociocultural and/or pragmatic contexts), in which it is derived.
• Constituents
of rhetoric
performance:
Conception
of Rhetoric
in Policy
Studies
– Exigence: It refers to the way the issue and/or problem to be
addressed in the rhetoric of a policy text are defined and
formulated. For example, in recent education reforms, the most
commonly used exigencies are either the decline of standards
of students and school leavers or the threat of losing national
competitiveness in global economic competitions.
• Constituents
of rhetoric
performance:
Conception
of Rhetoric
in Policy
Studies
– Audience: It signifies the actual or figurative audience, whom
the rhetoric of a policy text suppose to address or appeal to.
For example, in recent education-reform documents, the
audiences to be addressed are usually employers and/or
parents rather than teachers and education professions. It
indicates a sense of distrustfulness to professionals, who
usually been depicted as the sourced of falling standard in
education and/or falling competitiveness in national economy.
Even within the audience of parents, they has been defined as
consumers striving for individual gains rather than as citizens
constituting common will and good for the society as a whole.
Conception
of Rhetoric
in Policy
• Constituents
of rhetoric
performance:
Studies
– Rhetor credibility: It indicates the authorities of the speakers or
writers of the texts, and/or the authorities that the rhetoric of a
policy documents try to appealed to. For example, appeal to
concepts as well as authorities of neo-liberal economists, such
as Milton Friedman, in policy texts of education reform of
liberalization is one of the most common practices in recent
education reforms.
– Absence: It has been underlined that one of the essential
components in analyzing rhetoric is “what is absent from or
silenced by the text.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.169).
• Constituents
of rhetoric
performance:
Conception
of Rhetoric
in Policy
Studies
– Metaphor: “The essence of metaphor is understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” (Lakoff
and Johnson, 1980; quoted in Edwards, 2004, p.25) In
metaphoric analysis, it is claimed that “human understanding
is a metaphoric process; the mind grasps an unfamiliar idea
only by comparison to or in terms of something already known.
Thus the metaphoric language in a text presents a particular
view of reality by structuring the understanding of one idea in
terms of something previously understood.” (Gill & Whedbee,
1997, p.173)
– For example, in the rhetoric of the neo-liberalism the education
system is metaphorically prescribed as a market mechanism, a
school as a input-output factory, students as materials to be
processed and added on value, parents as choosing
consumers, school principals as CEO, etc.
• Constituents
of rhetoric
performance:
Conception
of Rhetoric
in Policy
–
Studies
Iconicity: “Iconicity functions in a way that is similar to
metaphor, iconicity ‘rests on the intuitive recognition of
similarities one field of reference (the form of language) and
another.’” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.174) For example, HK
school like to use celebrity graduates as rhetoric to indicate
the quality of the school.
Conception of Narrative in Policy Studies
• Conception of narrative in policy study
– Narrative can be defined as literal representation
which takes the form of a storyline, i.e. with clear
beginning, development, and end.
– It refers to the ‘storyline’ that each interpretive
community constructs, follows and put fore in a
policy argumentation. It is a representation schema a
interpretive community used to define their situation
in the policy reality and organize their arguments.
Conception of Narrative in Policy Studies
•
The structure of narrative: Numbers of scholars have tried to
summarize the structure of a narrative. Here Hyden White’s
formulation will be adopted
–
–
Central subject: The narrator or the main character in the story. In the
case of policy argumentation, the central subject is a particular
interpretive community/interest group.
Plot:
•
•
•
It refers to the sequence of events selectively organized into a narrative
by an interpretive community in the policy argumentation.
It represents “a structure of relationships by which the events contained
in the account are endowed with a meaning by being identified as parts of
an integrated whole” (P.9)
“The plot of a narrative imposes a meaning on the events that make up its
story level by revealing at the end a structure that was immanent in the
events all along.” (p.20)
Conception of Narrative in Policy Studies
•
The structure of narrative:
– Closure:
•
•
•
It refers to the resolution, evaluation and even moral meaning elicited
from the precedent sequence of events, i.e. plots.
As White indicates “a proper historical narrative … achieves narrative
fullness by explicitly invoking the idea of a social system to serve as a
fixed reference point by which the flow of ephemeral events can be
endowed with specifically moral meaning. … (Hence), the chronicle must
approach the form of an allegory, moral or analogical as the case may be,
in order to achieve both narrativity and historicality.” (p. 22)
As in the case of policy narrative, the closure performs the function of
resolving the policy alternatives and/or conflicts, evaluating the policy
choices, and attributing moral meanings to the policy conclusion. But
most importantly these resolution, evaluation and attribution are all
constructed according to the worldview and/or vested interest of the
interpretive community concerned.
Conception of Narrative in Policy Studies
•
The structure of narrative:
–
Authority: Narratives will usually be present in
authoritative manner as if they are the establishment of
facts, order and even truth
Conception of Narrative in Policy Studies
•
Narrative identity and decision-making by rule
following
By relating James March’s institutionist thesis of
decision-making by rule following with the interpretive
approach to narrative identity of interpretive
communities
Conception of Narrative in Policy
Studies
•
Narrative identity and decision-making by rule
following
–
–
–
The conception of interpretive community can be
construed as a community with a particular narrative
identity on a policy issue
As a result members of an interpretive community will
follow the logic of appropriateness in making decision
on policy issue
Hence, they are most unlikely to approach the policy
decision at hand in self-interest calculation orientation
but to base the decision on the narrative identity of the
interpretive community to which they have identified.
Perspectives and Processes in Policy Studies
Policy
Making
Analytic-Technical
Perspective
Interpretive-Political Critical-Discursive
Perspective
Perspective
Comprehensive
Rational Model
Political Approach


New
institutionalism
State Theory
Multi-Stream &
Policy window
Approach
Discourse
Approach

Argumentation

Frame

Rhetoric

Narrative
7
Policy Process Study: Policy-Making Study
END