Recycling bins, garbage cans or think tanks? Three myths regarding policy analysis institutes

The phrase 'think tank' has become ubiquitous – overworked and underspecified – in the political lexicon. It is entrenched in scholarly discussions of public policy as well as in the 'policy wonk' of journalists, lobbyists and spin-doctors. This does not mean that there is an agreed definition of think tank or consensual understanding of their roles and functions. Nevertheless, the majority of organizations with this label undertake policy research of some kind. The idea of think tanks as a research communication 'bridge' presupposes that there are discernible boundaries between (social) science and policy. This paper will investigate some of these boundaries. The frontiers are not only organizational and legal; they also exist in how the 'public interest' is conceived by these bodies and their financiers. Moreover, the social interactions and exchanges involved in 'bridging', themselves muddy the conception of 'boundary', allowing for analysis to go beyond the dualism imposed in seeing science on one side of the bridge, and the state on the other, to address the complex relations between experts and public policy

Polarization of coalitions in an agent-based model of political discourse

Political discourse is the verbal interaction between political actors in a policy domain. This article explains the formation of polarized advocacy or discourse coalitions in this complex phenomenon by presenting a dynamic, stochastic, and discrete agent-based model based on graph theory and local optimization. In a series of thought experiments, actors compute their utility of contributing a specific statement to the discourse by following ideological criteria, preferential attachment, agenda-setting strategies, governmental coherence, or other mechanisms. The evolving macro-level discourse is represented as a dynamic network and evaluated against arguments from the literature on the policy process. A simple combination of four theoretical mechanisms is already able to produce artificial policy debates with theoretically plausible properties. Any sufficiently realistic configuration must entail innovative and path-dependent elements as well as a blend of exogenous preferences and endogenous opinion formation mechanisms

Problematizing Choice: Responsible consumers and sceptical citizens

About the book: Governance, Consumers and Citizens is the first book to bring together a study of governance with consumption, examining the changing place of the consumer as citizen in recent trends in governance, the tensions between competing ideas and practices of consumerism and the active role consumers play in the construction and practice of governance. Radically pushing forward the debate on consumers and governance, this collection outlines new conceptions and posits new policy agendas. Bringing together international experts from political science, history, geography, social policy and media studies, this study shows how governance and consumption are intertwined in crucial aspects of public policy and contemporary politics

Opening up animal research and science-society relations?: a thematic analysis of transparency discourses in the United Kingdom

The use of animals in scientific research represents an interesting case to consider in the context of the contemporary preoccupation with transparency and openness in science and governance. In the United Kingdom, organisations critical of animal research have long called for more openness. More recently, organisations involved in animal research also seem to be embracing transparency discourses. This article provides a detailed analysis of publically available documents from animal protection groups, the animal research community and government/research funders. Our aim is to explore the similarities and differences in the way transparency is constructed and to identify what more openness is expected to achieve. In contrast to the existing literature, we conclude that the slipperiness of transparency discourses may ultimately have transformative implications for the relationship between science and society and that contemporary openness initiatives might be sowing the seeds for change to the status quo

Towards a synthesized critique of neoliberal biodiversity conservation

During the last three decades, the arena of biodiversity conservation has largely aligned itself with the globally dominant political ideology of neoliberalism and associated governmentalities. Schemes such as payments for ecological services are promoted to reach the multiple ‘wins’ so desired: improved biodiversity conservation, economic development, (international) cooperation and poverty alleviation, amongst others. While critical scholarship with respect to understanding the linkages between neoliberalism, capitalism and the environment has a long tradition, a synthesized critique of neoliberal conservation - the ideology (and related practices) that the salvation of nature requires capitalist expansion - remains lacking. This paper aims to provide such a critique. We commence with the assertion that there has been a conflation between ‘economics’ and neoliberal ideology in conservation thinking and implementation. As a result, we argue, it becomes easier to distinguish the main problems that neoliberal win-win models pose for biodiversity conservation. These are framed around three points: the stimulation of contradictions; appropriation and misrepresentation and the disciplining of dissent. Inspired by Bruno Latour’s recent ‘compositionist manifesto’, the conclusion outlines some ideas for moving beyond critique

Climate Change and the Emergence of New Organizational Landscapes

There is general agreement across the world that human-made climate change is a serious global problem, although there are still some sceptics who challenge this view. Research in organization studies on the topic is relatively new. Much of this research, however, is instrumental and managerialist in its focus on 'win-win' opportunities for business or its treatment of climate change as just another corporate social responsibility (CSR) exercise. In this paper, we suggest that climate change is not just an environmental problem requiring technical and managerial solutions; it is a political issue where a variety of organizations - state agencies, firms, industry associations, NGOs and multilateral organizations - engage in contestation as well as collaboration over the issue. We discuss the strategic, institutional and political economy dimensions of climate change and develop a socioeconomic regimes approach as a synthesis of these different theoretical perspectives. Given the urgency of the problem and the need for a rapid transition to a low-carbon economy, there is a pressing need for organization scholars to develop a better understanding of apathy and inertia in the face of the current crisis and to identify paths toward transformative change. The seven papers in this special issue address these areas of research and examine strategies, discourses, identities and practices in relation to climate change at multiple levels

Sustainability appraisal: Jack of all trades, master of none?

Sustainable development is a commonly quoted goal for decision making and supports a large number of other discourses. Sustainability appraisal has a stated goal of supporting decision making for sustainable development. We suggest that the inherent flexibility of sustainability appraisal facilitates outcomes that often do not adhere to the three goals enshrined in most definitions of sustainable development: economic growth, environmental protection and enhancement, and the wellbeing of the human population. Current practice is for sustainable development to be disenfranchised through the interpretation of sustainability, whereby the best alternative is good enough even when unsustainable. Practitioners must carefully and transparently review the frameworks applied during sustainability appraisal to ensure that outcomes will meet the three goals, rather than focusing on a discourse that emphasises one or more goals at the expense of the other(s)

The discovery of ash dieback in the UK: the making of a focusing event

Why did the identification of ‘Ash Dieback’ (Chalara Fraxinea) in 2012 in the UK catch the national media, public and political zeitgeist, and lead to policy changes, in a way that no other contemporary tree pest or pathogen outbreak has?The identification of Ash Dieback in the UK is conceptualised as a successful ‘focusing event’ and the ways in which it was socially constructed by the media, stakeholders and the government are analysed. National newspaper coverage contributed to the way that the disease was understood and was significant in driving the political response. Ash Dieback’s focal power derived from the perceived scale and nature of its impact; the initial attribution of blame on government; the ‘war-like’ response from the government; and Ash’s status as a threatened ‘native’ tree. The Ash Dieback focusing event has increased the salience of plant health issues amongst policymakers, the public and conservation organisations in the UK

"Open Innovation" and "Triple Helix" Models of Innovation: Can Synergy in Innovation Systems Be Measured?

The model of "Open Innovations" (OI) can be compared with the "Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations" (TH) as attempts to find surplus value in bringing industrial innovation closer to public R&D. Whereas the firm is central in the model of OI, the TH adds multi-centeredness: in addition to firms, universities and (e.g., regional) governments can take leading roles in innovation eco-systems. In addition to the (transversal) technology transfer at each moment of time, one can focus on the dynamics in the feedback loops. Under specifiable conditions, feedback loops can be turned into feedforward ones that drive innovation eco-systems towards self-organization and the auto-catalytic generation of new options. The generation of options can be more important than historical realizations ("best practices") for the longer-term viability of knowledge-based innovation systems. A system without sufficient options, for example, is locked-in. The generation of redundancy -- the Triple Helix indicator -- can be used as a measure of unrealized but technologically feasible options given a historical configuration. Different coordination mechanisms (markets, policies, knowledge) provide different perspectives on the same information and thus generate redundancy. Increased redundancy not only stimulates innovation in an eco-system by reducing the prevailing uncertainty; it also enhances the synergy in and innovativeness of an innovation system.Comment: Journal of Open Innovations: Technology, Market and Complexity, 2(1) (2016) 1-12; doi:10.1186/s40852-016-0039-