Les politiques publiques comparées : tourisme intelligent ou vrai progrès ? : le cas des politiques comparées de l'environnement

Unlike the situation in the field of traditional comparative government, research aiming at comparing public policies throughout different countries has considerably increased since the beginning of the seventies. This new type of policy - rather than total governmental systems • oriented research actually seems to correspond to ongoing fragmentation processes isolating individual policies from each other, which we can observe in fiscally stressed modern industrialized welfare states. This contribution shows that this single policy oriented approach, however, may run the risk of loosing a general view of structural determinants, common to most or all public policies of a country due to specific policy characteristics of countries under comparison. In fact, this new type of policy oriented comparative analysis has not yet brought up what ASHFORD calls a «comparative policy based explanation of the state». While such an ambitious goal initially only has been set up by a few scholars, comparative policy analysis research activities since their beginning have been subjected to other (less far-reaching) objectives which, nevertheless, turned out to have been unrealistic too. Neither those who expected to become enabled to precisely determine policy transfer conditions nor those who searched for new policy explanation hypothesis have been satisfied. The contribution of comparative policy research to policy reform debates within involved countries remained relatively poor. By means of a tentative evaluation of comparative analysis done in the field of environmental policies, mainly based upon the work of VOGEL, the article tries to show that such initial hopes could not have been fulfilled because of genuine limits inherent in the approach itself. Such limits are based in the necessary conceptual rigidity and selectivity of serious comparative policy analysis which furthermore /nust inevitably be guided by existing research hypothesis, developed under carefully controlled national policy conditions. Conceptual rigidity and selectivity nevertheless may be considered as the main causes for the strength of comparative policy analysis. The consequent search for a limited and well defined set of possible explanatory variables often enables scholars to find out policy relevant determinants in their country they would not have asked for without cooperating in a comparative context. Thus the approach helps to overcome cultural biases and leads politicians and public administrations towards a better understanding of country specific determinants of policy success or failure. Furthermore, this approach allows testing hypothesis on a broader range and thus it contributes considerably to the development of theory on public policy explanations. Especially if including regional and local policy implementation processes the approach is likely to discover explanatory patterns for implementation policy outputs and impacts, which are in fact common to policies of different countries with varying policy programs.L 'analyse comparée de politiques publiques, qui se distingue de l'analyse comparative des systèmes politiques entiers, a connu un développement rapide dès le début des années 70. Ce nouveau type d'analyse reflète le fractionnement actuel des administrations des états industrialisés en crise. Mais cette isolation des politiques publiques analysées et comparées fait courir le danger de perdre une vue d'ensemble des éléments communs à toutes les politiques publiques d'un pays. En fait, ce type d'analyse n'a pas encore permis d'élaborer une «théorie comparative des Etats», fondée sur la permanence d'éléments structurels de l'ensemble des politiques publiques des pays (ASHFORD). Mais cet objectif ambitieux n'avait pas été énoncé dès l'origine de cette nouvelle discipline. D'autres espoirs avaient été misés sur les analyses de type «politiques publiques comparées» : initialement, ces analyses devaient permettre de déterminer les conditions exactes du transfert d'éléments et de concepts d'un pays à l'autre, de participer à l'élaboration de stratégies de réforme à l'intérieur des pays étudiés et d'élaborer de nouvel/es hypothèses. On se pose la question de savoir si les recherches de type «politiques publiques comparées» ont pu combler ces espoirs, que la communauté scientifique, les administrations et les financiers avaient portés sur elles. Après avoir dressé un bilan des recherches comparées, menées dans le domaine de la politique de l'environnement, il est montré pourquoi ces trois objectifs se sont avérés impossibles à atteindre : la rigidité conceptuelle de l'analyse comparée de politiques publiques, sa limitation à un nombre restreint d'éléments composant les politiques étudiées et son incapacité à produire de nouvelles hypothèses sont la cause de l'échec de ce type d'analyse à répondre aux objectifs de départ. Cependant, les trois limites inhérentes à ces recherches constituent en fin de compte un avantage pour ce type d'analyse. En effet, par le biais de la comparaison internationale, on peut mettre en évidence l'existence de facteurs décisifs des politiques publiques étudiées, qui ne peuvent pas être découverts par le biais de l'analyse non comparative, du fait d'un certain aveuglement culturel inhérent à cette dernière. Les hypothèses développées dans les contextes nationaux sont soumises aux tests empiriques de l'analyse comparée et leur validité est alors remise en cause, ce qui permet d'obtenir un certain niveau de généralisation des hypothèses de départ ; l'analyse comparée met également en évidence des similitudes de modèles explicatifs dans des régions de pays différents ainsi que des variations importantes de ces modèles explicatifs dans différentes régions d'un même pays.Knoepfel Peter, Larrue Corinne. Les politiques publiques comparées : tourisme intelligent ou vrai progrès ? Le cas des politiques comparées de l'environnement. In: Politiques et management public, vol. 2, n° 3, 1984. pp. 45-63

Distribution spatiale et mise en oeuvre d'une politique publique : le cas de la pollution atmosphérique

After a short presentation of the french national air quality control programme, characterized in a comparative perspective as «partial» and loose, the contribution analyses related implementation activities within three representative french regions. It brings up considerable differences with regard to the instruments used, the outputs and the impacts of regional implementation policies. It points out related variable constellations explaining these inter-regional differences, which mainly consist in different patterns of spatial administrative resources allocation amongst different local problem areas (problem pressure vs actor pressure related patterns). The authors argue that such different distributional patterns may be found in other regulatory policy too ; within such distributional processes in regulatory policy implementation activities, local actors are assumed to play a predominant role.Après avoir présenté l'arrangement politico-administratif retenu pour la mise en œuvre de la politique de lutte contre la pollution de l'air en France, les auteurs constatent que les politiques mises en place dans trois régions prises à titre d'exemple diffèrent, tant sur le plan des instruments d'intervention retenus que sur les résultats obtenus ; les facteurs explicatifs de ces différences sont alors analysés, et il apparaît que la distribution spatiale du problème de la pollution atmosphérique n'est pas le seul facteur explicatif des variations constatées entre les régions et entre les localités à l'intérieur des régions. Cette analyse conduit à une réflexion sur les effets distributifs de la mise en œuvre de politiques publiques, qui ne se limitent pas aux seules politiques redistributives classiquesKnoepfel Peter, Larrue Corinne. Distribution spatiale et mise en œuvre d'une politique publique : le cas de la pollution atmosphérique. In: Politiques et management public, vol. 3, n° 2, 1985. Le management public entre les politiques nationales et les stratégies des organisations publiques. Actes du Premier Colloque International Paris - 26, 27, 28 septembre 1984 - (Deuxième partie) Préparés par Guy Terny, sous la direction de Guy Terny . pp. 43-69

Hacia un modelo de análisis de políticas públicas operativ : Un enfoque basado en los actores, sus recursos y las instituciones

Towards an operative analysis of public policies: An approach focused on actors, resources and institutions. This article develops an analytical model which is centred on the individual and collective behaviour of actors involved during different stages of public policy. We postulate that the content and institutional characteristics of public action (dependent variable) are the result of interactions between political-administrative authorities, on the one hand, and, on the other, social groups which cause or suffer the negative effects of a collective problem which public action attempts to resolve (independent variables). The 'game' of the actors depends not only on their particular interests, but also on their resources (money, time, consensus, organization, rights, infrastructure, information, personnel, strength, political support) which they are able to exploit to defend their positions, as well as on the institutional rules which frame these policy games

Detection of flavescence dorée phytoplasma in grapevine in northern Spain

Research NoteGrapevine yellows diseased stocks were observed in vineyards of the Alt Emporda area, northern Spain. Phytoplasma was detected and characterized by PCR-RFLP in the region of the 16S rDNA of phytoplasmas or by ELISA. For the first time a FD phytoplasma was detected in Spain

Is flood defense changing in nature? Shifts in the flood defense strategy in six European countries

In many countries, flood defense has historically formed the core of flood risk management but this strategy is now evolving with the changing approach to risk management. This paper focuses on the neglected analysis of institutional changes within the flood defense strategies formulated and implemented in six European countries (Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden). The evolutions within the defense strategy over the last 30 years have been analyzed with the help of three mainstream institutional theories: a policy dynamics-oriented framework, a structure-oriented institutional theory on path dependency, and a policy actors-oriented analysis called the advocacy coalitions framework. We characterize the stability and evolution of the trends that affect the defense strategy in the six countries through four dimensions of a policy arrangement approach: actors, rules, resources, and discourses. We ask whether the strategy itself is changing radically, i.e., toward a discontinuous situation, and whether the processes of change are more incremental or radical. Our findings indicate that in the European countries studied, the position of defense strategy is continuous, as the classical role of flood defense remains dominant. With changing approaches to risk, integrated risk management, climate change, urban growth, participation in governance, and socioeconomic challenges, the flood defense strategy is increasingly under pressure to change. However, these changes can be defined as part of an adaptation of the defense strategy rather than as a real change in the nature of flood risk management

Flood risk mitigation in Europe: how far away are we from the aspired forms of adaptive governance?

Flood mitigation is a strategy that is growing in importance across Europe. This growth corresponds with an increasing emphasis on the need to learn to live with floods and make space for water. Flood mitigation measures aim at reducing the likelihood and magnitude of flooding and complement flood defenses. They are being put in place through the implementation of actions that accommodate (rather than resist) water, such as natural flood management or adapted housing. The strategy has gained momentum over the past 20 years in an effort to improve the sustainability of flood risk management (FRM) and facilitate the diversification of FRM in the pursuit of societal resilience to flooding. Simultaneously, it is increasingly argued that adaptive forms of governance are best placed to address the uncertainty and complexity associated with social-ecological systems responding to environmental challenges, such as flooding. However, there have been few attempts to examine the extent to which current flood risk governance, and flood mitigation specifically, reflect these aspired forms of adaptive governance. Drawing from EU research into flood risk governance, conducted within the STAR-FLOOD project, we examine the governance of flood mitigation in six European countries: Belgium, England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. Using in-depth policy and legal analysis, as well as interviews with key actors, the governance and implementation of flood mitigation in these countries is evaluated from the normative viewpoint of whether, and to what extent, it can be characterized as adaptive governance. We identify five criteria of adaptive governance based on a comprehensive literature review and apply these to each country to determine the “distance” between current governance arrangements and adaptive governance. In conclusion, the flood mitigation strategy provides various opportunities for actors to further pursue forms of adaptive governance. The extent to which the mitigation strategy is capable of doing so varies across countries, however, and its role in stimulating adaptive governance was found to be strongest in Belgium and England

Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate change

Flooding is the most common of all natural disasters and accounts for large numbers of casualties and a high amount of economic damage worldwide. To be ‘flood resilient’, countries should have sufficient capacity to resist, the capacity to absorb and recover, and the capacity to transform and adapt. Based on international comparative research, we conclude that six key governance strategies will enhance ‘flood resilience’ and will secure the necessary capacities. These strategies pertain to: (i) the diversification of flood risk management approaches; (ii) the alignment of flood risk management approaches to overcome fragmentation; (iii) the involvement, cooperation, and alignment of both public and private actors in flood risk management; (iv) the presence of adequate formal rules that balance legal certainty and flexibility; (v) the assurance of sufficient financial and other types of resources; (vi) the adoption of normative principles that adequately deal with distributional effects. These governance strategies appear to be relevant across different physical and institutional contexts. The findings may also hold valuable lessons for the governance of climate adaptation more generally

Toward more flood resilience: is a diversification of flood risk management strategies the way forward?

European countries face increasing flood risks due to urbanization, increase of exposure and damage potential, and the effects of climate change. In literature and in practice, it is argued that a diversification of strategies for flood risk management (FRM) - including flood risk prevention (through pro-active spatial planning), flood defense, flood risk mitigation, flood preparation and flood recovery - makes countries more flood resilient. While this thesis is plausible, it should still be empirically scrutinized. This paper aims to do this. Drawing on existing literature we operationalize the notion of "flood resilience" into three capacities: capacity to resist; capacity to absorb and recover; and capacity to transform and adapt. Based on findings from the EU FP7 project STAR-FLOOD, we explore the degree of diversification of FRM strategies and related flood risk governance arrangements at the national level in Belgium, England, France, The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden, as well as these countries' achievement in terms of the three capacities. We found that The Netherlands and to a lesser extent Belgium have a strong "capacity to resist", France a strong "capacity to absorb and recover" and especially England a high capacity to transform and adapt. Having a diverse portfolio of FRM strategies in place may be conducive to high achievements related to the capacities to absorb/recover and to transform and adapt. Hence, we conclude that diversification of FRM strategies contributes to resilience. However, the diversification thesis should be nuanced in the sense that there are different ways to be resilient. First, the three capacities imply different rationales and normative starting points for flood risk governance, the choice between which is inherently political. Second, we found trade-offs between the three capacities, e.g. being resistant seems to lower the possibility to be absorbent. Third, to explain countries' achievements in terms of resilience, the strategies' feasibility in specific physical circumstances and their fit in existing institutional contexts (appropriateness) as well as the establishment of links between strategies, through bridging mechanisms, have also been shown to be crucial factors. The paper provides much needed reflection on the implications of this diagnosis for governments, private parties and citizens who want to increase flood resilience