Crises, technology, and policy change

Abstract

Public policy research investigates conditions and triggers of policy change in many ways. Technological developments and other innovations are part of these drivers but have to be seen in the context of other social, economic, and political conditions and developments. Although technological change is often a long-term process, policy change may occur only abruptly. This can be partly attributed to the fact that major policy changes are usually based on policy windows, which can be caused by crises, among other things. This issue of Review of Policy Research contributes to the understanding of the relationship between technology, crisis, and policy change. The issue opens with an article on the most discussed crisis in recent years, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. Osei-Kojo, Kenney, et al. (2022) present an analysis of policy documents in Ghana collected between March 2020 and May 2021. Public policy in African countries is one of the areas that have been comparatively little investigated so far, although there are some first applications of established frameworks like the ACF (Bandelow et al., 2022; Vecchione & Parkhurst, 2015). Osei-Kojo et al. identify four levels and diverse actors to be involved in COVID-19 mitigation in Ghana. By applying the collective learning perspective, the paper offers various theoretical, empirical, and methodological results with respect to the specifics of the policy process in Ghana. These include the interplay of formal and informal actors, missing evidence of trust as a basis for learning processes between actors, and the challenge of empirical research using solely document analysis. The second paper by Liu and Christensen (2022) deals with the institutionalization of emergency management in China. Liu and Christensen show peculiarities of Chinese politics that are likely to be found in a similar form in many areas: On the one hand, political institutions in China are based on specific solutions shaped by the country's particular culture and historical path. For example, emergency management in China has evolved from traditional disaster management, while in the West its origins lie in civil defense. However, similar challenges, such as virus pandemics, and increasing transnational exchange are contributing to transnational policy transfers to China. This leads to “hybrid reform patterns” with highly centralized and government-centered arrangements and particular strengths and challenges. Zhang (2022) develops a framework for comparing innovation governance processes. This approach takes into account different levels of complexity of key problems leading to four ideal patterns of innovation governance. The typology is applied to East Asian economies with Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and Taiwan serving as ideal typological examples. Zhang concludes that the design of policy mixes must take into account institutional constraints and interests of state and non-state actors to be effective. Mallinson and Shafi (2022) discuss multiple opportunities and challenges resulting from smart home technologies (SHT) for both the policy process and policy research. From the public policy perspective, SHT can be interpreted as emerging policy subsystems that constitute policy actors, beliefs, networks, and decision-making processes. As these new subsystems still have to be established, SHT issues are addressed in several arenas, including constraints faced by policymakers from the particular institutions and identities of their original subsystems (like health, technology, or environment). Mallinson and Shafi propose the collaborative governance framework to deal with the need for overcoming barriers between actors. They emphasize the particular need for policy research to develop effective solutions for technologized and aging societies. Roberts and Schmid (2022) present three case studies of US federal government innovation and technology acceleration organizations from a “systems of innovations” perspective. Case 1 is the legally independent non-profit In-Q-Tel used by the CIA. Case 2 is the FBI's operational technology division (OTD) also used by state and local agencies. Case 3 is the federal government agency National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) used by several private and government entities. Although the article does not want to name a clear model for optimal organizational design, a comparison of the three approaches yields generalizable recommendations. Generally speaking, Roberts and Schmid suggest establishing linkages between experts and users, using good metrics, and fostering learning by boundary spanners for optimal innovation promotion. This issue of RPR not only illustrates the multiple connections between technical innovations, crises, and policy change. Above all, the regional diversity of these case studies shows that policy research continues to internationalize. This invites further exchange between the still North Atlantic public policy perspectives and the specific contributions from other parts of the world.