نقش سیاست آفرینان در فرایند سیاستگذاری؛ بررسی تقابل عوامل فردی و ساختاری (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
«سیاست آفرینی» یکی از مفاهیمی است که توسط پژوهشگران مختلف برای توصیف نقش و اثرگذاری برخی افراد در فرایند سیاستگذاری استفاده می شود. سیاست آفرینان افرادی هستند که «زمان، انرژی، شهرت و گاهی اوقات پول» را برای توسعه راه حل ترجیحی خود برای یک مسئله سیاستی در فرایند سیاستگذاری اختصاص می دهند. در پاره ای اوقات، سیاست آفرینان در تأثیرگذاری بر فرایند سیاستگذاری موفق اند یا با شکست روبه رو می شوند که دلایل این امر از منظرهای مختلف قابل بررسی است. پژوهش حاضر با تمرکز بر ادبیات این حوزه به بررسی نقش مؤلفه های فردی مانند راهبردها و ابزارهای مورد استفاده سیاست آفرینان در تأثیرگذاری بر فرایند سیاستگذاری می پردازد و عوامل ساختاری دخیل در تأثیرگذاری آنها را نیز از منظر نظریه های مختلف سیاست عمومی بررسی می کند. یافته های پژوهش نشان می دهد راهبردهای مورد استفاده سیاست آفرینان مانند استفاده از شواهد علمی به منظور متقاعدسازی، داستان سرایی، شبکه سازی، ایجاد ائتلاف های سیاستی/ تغییرات نهادی و دستکاری سیاسی نقش مهمی بر تأثیرگذاری آنها بر فرایند سیاستگذاری دارد. همچنین هر کدام از چارچوب های سیاستی بر بعد خاصی از این مفهوم تمرکز کرده و نقش سطوح ساختاری و زمینه های محیطی را در نقش آفرینی سیاست آفرینان، متفاوت ارزیابی می کنند. بیشتر پژوهش ها به طور چشمگیری بر قدرت سیاست آفرینان و در عین حال بر کم اهمیت جلوه دادن عوامل ساختاری در شکل دادن به اقدامات آنها تأکید می کنند. در نهایت باید گفت که از بین نظریان مختلف سیاست عمومی، سه چارچوب جریان چندگانه کینگدان، ائتلاف حامی و روایت های سیاستی، بیش از نظریات دیگر بر این حوزه متمرکز شده اند و عوامل متفاوتی را در این زمینه مؤثر می دانند.Examining the Role and Influence of Policy Entrepreneurs in Policy Process
IntroductionThe concept of “policy entrepreneurs” was introduced as a theoretical concept in Kingdon’s research. Kingdon’s framework considers the role of the individual in the policy process to be important and explains why change may or may not occur. Kingdon calls these individuals entrepreneur who devote “time, energy, reputation, and sometimes money” to promoting their preferred solution for a policy problem. After Kingdon, this concept received much attention from many researchers and was developed in two directions. In the first direction, different researchers applied Kingdon’s framework to different study samples and empirically examined the roles of entrepreneurs that he listed. In the second direction, researchers, emphasizing some of the characteristics of entrepreneurs mentioned in Kingdon’s framework, modified and revised some of its dimensions, and criticized them. As a result, new features, tools, and generally new considerations were developed to clarify the theoretical potential of this concept, which are listed in different sections of this research. In summary, it should be said that the researchers' effort has been to examine empirical evidence and use an inductive approach to develop theoretical frameworks that enumerate the role of various individual and structural factors that enable or hinder the success of entrepreneurs in influencing the policy-making process. Therefore, the main question of this research is as folows: “what strategies do entrepreneurs use at the individual level to influence the public policy process and what stimuli or constraints do their actions face at the structural and environmental levels?” Accordingly, the main hypothesis of the research is that: the individual strategies used by entrepreneurs, such as the use of scientific evidence for persuasion, storytelling, networking, building policy coalitions/institutional changes, and political manipulation, play an important role in their influence on the policy-making process. Also, based on the three frameworks of multiple streams of Kingdon, advocacy coalitions, and policy narratives, different structural factors play a role in this context. The Research MethodThis qualitative study, by examining existing sources and emphasizing three theoretical frameworks in the field of public policymaking, namely multiple streams, advocacy coalitions, and policy narratives, examines the factors affecting the role-playing of entrepreneurs at the individual and structural levels. Accordingly, the types of entrepreneurs and their individual strategies are first described, and then, the role of structural and environmental factors in reducing the agency of entrepreneurs is discussed citing empirical examples. ResultsMost of the researches have overemphasized the power of entrepreneurs while downplaying the structural factors that shape their actions. In other words, the existing literature on policymaking tends to be agent-centric, placing individual deliberation at the heart of policymaking. It thus ignores broader structural conditions or simply dismisses them as “unpredictable” or “probable” factors. The central question here is that how entrepreneurs can generate new policy ideas who are institutionally present in a policymaking domain and subject to a set of regulatory, normative, and cognitive processes that constrain their cognition, define their interests, and produce their identities? This is because individuals must break the rules and procedures of the structures and institutions in which they are embedded in order to qualify as policymakers. To resolve this paradox, we must either avoid the extremes of voluntarism, in which agent autonomy is overemphasized—for example, in the multi-stream approach—or move toward the extremes of determinism, whereby policy outcomes are shaped by contextual forces. These deterministic approaches are at odds with the discourse of policy-making that has helped to direct policy analysis toward the study of actors and their role in catalyzing policy change. The internal environment in which entrepreneurs interact with each other plays a prominent role. Their behaviors and motivations can be determined by the organization to which they belong and their position in the political system. Furthermore, their position determines whether they can create effective social networks, communication channels, and opportunities for policy innovation. The institutionalist view of the policy-making process and policy change allows considerable scope for the influence of motivated individuals and groups. By highlighting the “logic of proportionality,” March and Olsen (1989) have shown the importance of actors’ deep knowledge of the procedures and norms of acceptable behavior. Organizational accounts show that attention to domestic sensitivities is crucial for effective policy change. On the other hand, it should be noted that at times, environmental considerations, including international ones, activate a particular type of national entrepreneurs. ConclusionsThe research findings showed that theoretical frameworks of policy-making take a different view of the degree of freedom of entrepreneurs and their level of activism in existing structures. The policy narrative framework emphasizes the relatively independent influence of entrepreneurs and downplays the role of structural factors in shaping their actions. This is while the multiple-stream and coalition frameworks emphasize the dominance of structural factors over entrepreneurs.
تبلیغات
