Democratic Public Policy Research Articles

Trust Us—We Are the (COVID-19 Misinformation) Experts: A Critical Scoping Review of Expert Meanings of “Misinformation” in the Covid Era

Since the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, prominent social actors and institutions have warned about the threat of misinformation, calling for policy action to address it. However, neither the premises underlying expert claims nor the standards to separate truth from falsehood have been appraised. We conducted a scoping review of the medical and social scientific literature, informed by a critical policy analysis approach, examining what this literature means by misinformation. We searched academic databases and refereed publications, selecting a total of 68 articles for review. Two researchers independently charted the data. Our most salient finding was that verifiability relied largely on the claims of epistemic authorities, albeit only those vetted by the establishment, to the exclusion of independent evidentiary standards or heterodox perspectives. Further, “epistemic authority” did not depend necessarily on subject matter expertise, but largely on a new type of “expertise”: in misinformation itself. Finally, policy solutions to the alleged threat that misinformation poses to democracy and human rights called for suppressing unverified information and debate unmanaged by establishment approved experts, in the name of protecting democracy and rights, contrary to democratic practice and respect for human rights. Notably, we identified no pockets of resistance to these dominant meanings and uses. We assessed the implications of our findings for democratic public policy, and for fundamental rights and freedoms.

Integrating One health into public policies: a One health policy screening tool

Abstract The One Health High Level Expert Panel in 2022 issued a new international consensus definition of One health: ‘One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It recognizes the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and inter-dependent. The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for clean water, energy and air, safe and nutritious food, taking action on climate change, and contributing to sustainable development.’ From a democratic public policy perspective, One Health is aimed at weighing the values, interests, issues and partial solutions of interdependent components of a complex adaptive ecosystem, and seeking a balance in trade-offs between them. The One Health policy screening tool provides an overview as input to the political designation of balanced policy priorities that is the responsibility of EFA. The aims of the tool are (1) to inform a reconsideration of the government's weighing of One Health aspects, as well as (2) to assess the policy proposal's integrative capacity for One Health. The tool supports the identification of potential policy impacts or lacking consideration of a range of One Health core aspects, and a rapid appraisal of the current integrative level of One Health aimed policies. The purpose is a desktop screening by EFA policy advisors based on existing information to be completed within a few days. Following the OHHLEP 2022 definition, the tool offers a relative quick, non-exhaustive overview of the broad One Health spectrum, and references to existing open access impact assessment frameworks, global or EU databases of core aspect composite country indicators, and policy guidance resources.

Innovation models and interdisciplinarity in science, technology and innovation policy in Costa Rica

PurposeThis paper aims to analyse innovation models and interdisciplinarity in science, technology and innovation (STI) policy in Costa Rica between 2015 and 2021. The core focus is to evaluate the public policy in light of the groundwork that sustains the designed and proposed actions.Design/methodology/approachThe authors applied a qualitative approach to build a set of dimensions and conducted content-analysis of selected documents. The analysis encompasses all current STI public policy documents in Costa Rica, including the planning instruments of the Central Government and the National Policy on STI.FindingsThe main findings show that STI policy in Costa Rica is based on different innovation models, but the projects and instruments themselves show the predominance of the reductionist model. Innovation receives a residual role. In turn, interdisciplinarity is based on the concept of convergence, which limits disciplinary collaboration to the natural, physical and engineering sciences, minimising contributions from other fields of knowledge to an instrumental role in innovation processes.Practical implicationsThe authors conclude that the interlinkage between open innovation models, the participation of diverse societal actors and the inclusion of an interdisciplinary perspective leads to inclusive and more democratic public policy, allowing more sectors and organisations to benefit from innovation processes. This would imply a greater reach and impact of the policy, conditions that translate into innovation achievements and a better return on public investment.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to current discussions on STI policy by studying the implications of the link among policies, innovation models and interdisciplinarity.

Into the Field: a Reflexive Narration of Critical Policy Studies

Abstract This article aims at presenting a narrative of Critical Policy Studies as a school of thought that is built, reflexively, within the Policy Studies field, consolidating and pluralizing it. This approach, although little known in Brazil, represents, increasingly, an alternative and a consistent path of studies, that distinguishes itself by assuming the centrality of language as an unit of analysis in policy processes; choosing interpretation as a method; taking the arguments as the main research material and post-positivism as its purpose. Methodologically, this article has been built through a narrative review of the literature and it adopted, as a starting point, the discussion forum on “what is critical?”, published in the Critical Policy Studies Review (2016 edition), and the Handbook of Critical Policy Studies itself (Fischer, Torgerson, Durnová & Orsini, 2016). In five sections, we narrate the development of Critical Policy Studies School passing, mainly, through interpretative and argumentative approaches, seeking to establish fertile dialogues with analysts, bureaucrats, managers and researchers. As well as with all those interested in facing the challenges of producing other narratives and developing new research and teaching processes in this field of studies, with the objective of making the Policy Studies field more diverse and more consistent with the Brazilian reality. We conclude that, paradoxically, the plurality - disciplinary, epistemological, methodological, theoretical and thematic - that characterizes the development of the Policy Studies field, in Brazil, still falls short of meaning more participatory, inclusive and democratic public policies. In this sense, we believe that the effort to contribute to the introduction of this literature in the Brazilian Policy Studies field not only presupposes the adoption of a critical-reflexive research stance, but also represents a first step towards the adoption of increasingly democratizing practices in the Policy field.

Inequality in policy implementation: caste and electrification in rural India

AbstractWe examine unequal outcomes in the implementation of India’s national rural electrification program in Uttar Pradesh. We ask two questions: (1) to what extent did Dalits, the lowest group in India’s caste hierarchy, receive less attention when the state electrified rural communities? (2) Was BSP, the state’s Dalit party, able to reduce this inequality? Using data from a hundred thousand villages, we provide robust evidence for unequal outcomes. Villages inhabited solely by Dalits were 20 percentage points less likely to be covered by the program than villages without any Dalits. Moreover, a regression discontinuity analysis shows that the electoral success of BSP failed to reduce such differences. These results highlight the magnitude and persistence of caste inequality in the implementation of democratic public policy, despite political representation.

Thy Will Be Done?

Levels of both religiosity and of religious influence on public policy vary enormously across the countries of post-communist East Central Europe. This variation poses a challenge to existing explanations, which have focused on religious competition and alliances with political parties to explain religious participation and policy influence, respectively. The legacy of religious nationalism instead helps to explain both the vibrancy of religious participation and the influence of churches on democratic public policy. This variation also calls for greater scrutiny of “historical legacies”: while some patterns are durable and reach back centuries, others are recent innovations.

NSA Management Directive #424: Secrecy and Privacy in the Aftermath of Edward Snowden

Whatever else one might say concerning the legality, morality, and prudence of his actions, Edward Snowden, the former U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, is right about the notion of publicity and informed consent, which together constitute the hallmark of democratic public policy. In order to be morally justifiable, any strategy or policy involving the body politic must be one to which it would voluntarily assent when fully informed about it. This, in essence, was Snowden's argument for leaking, in June 2013, the documents that revealed the massive NSA surveillance program:So long as there's broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there's a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision. . . . However, programs that are implemented in secret, out of public oversight, lack that legitimacy, and that's a problem. It also represents a dangerous normalization of “governing in the dark,” where decisions with enormous public impact occur without any public input.

Developing and sustaining creative cities: a sustainability tool for designers, planners, and public administrators

A creative city will be made up of many distinct characteristics within the five domains of sustainability: environmental qualities, socio-cultural conditions, technological applications, economic patterns and vitalities and supportive, democratic public policies. All of these characteristics are dependent upon sustainable design, sustainable planning and responsible urban administration for the creative and sustainable human habitat. Each key characteristic within these five domains is potentially a sustainability indicator that can be designed, planned and tracked over time for urban sustainability efficiency and effectiveness.

Democracy and robust hope

A key aim of democratic public policy should be the provision of hope. It is often argued that a key element of hope is not only a drive for equity in the face of neo-liberal marketization, but also the opportunity for the practice of agency by (especially disadvantaged) citizens. Here we examine the relationship between democracy and hope in an educational context by discussing recent education and training reforms `for the future' (ETRF) in the Australian state of Queensland. We argue that these reforms have provided the opportunity for active democratic participation by young people and their communities in planning their futures and that they therefore provide an instance of what we have called `robust hope'.

Informational limits to democratic public policy: The jury theorem, yardstick competition, and ignorance

Condorcet's jury theorem provides a possible explanation for the success of democracies relative to other forms of governance since the late industrial revolution. In its modern form, the jury theorem predicts that majority decisions will be well informed, because they are based on far more information than possessed by any single voter. On the other hand, it is evident that democratic politicians and policies are not always as good as the jury theorem implies they should be. This paper uses simulations to explore the power and limitations of majority rule as an estimator of candidate or policy effectiveness. The simulations demonstrate that a moderate number of slightly informed voters can make very accurate choices among candidates using majority rule. However, voter ignorance can nonetheless be a significant problem for the accuracy of majority decisions.

Informational Limits to Democratic Public Policy: The Jury Theorem, Yardstick Competition, and Ignorance

Condorcet's jury theorem provides a possible explanation for the success of democracies relative to other forms of governance since the late industrial revolution. In its modern form, the jury theorem predicts that majority decisions will be well informed, because they are based on far more information than possessed by any single voter. On the other hand, it is evident that democratic politicians and policies are not always as good as the jury theorem implies they should be. This paper uses simulations to explore the power and limitations of majority rule as an estimator of candidate or policy effectiveness. The simulations demonstrate that a moderate number of slightly informed voters can make very accurate choices among candidates using majority rule. However, voter ignorance can nonetheless be a significant problem for the accuracy of majority decisions.

Writing public policy: A practicum

Practical experience teaches the difficulty and the messiness of democratic public policy processes. A discourse analytic perspective on rhetorical action in the institutional settings of policy work reveals the dynamics of effective agency. By simulating practical experience and by developing a discourse analytic perspective, academic instruction in professional and technical communication can show students what elected officials, governmental staff, and non‐profit non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) do to make or to implement policy.

Innovative leadership in democracy: policy change under Thatcher

Part 1 The scope of policy choice in democracies: democratic theory and public policy choice social factors in public policy choice governmental factors in public policy choice economic and secular factors in public policy choice patterns of democratic public policy choice notes. Part 2 From leaders to innovative leadership: political leadership leaders as policy-makers notes. Part 3 Margaret Thatcher - a good test of innovative leadership?: Thatcher's political style Thatcher's institutional relations policy style, institutional relationship and prospects for innovative leadership notes. Part 4 Social factors and Thatcher's policy choice: public opinion interest groups notes. Part 5 Governmental factors and Thatcher's policy choice: size and machinery of Government inter-governmental relations notes. Part 6 Economic and secular factors and Thatcher's policy choice: macro-economic policy fiscal stress notes. Part 7 Innovative leadership: Thatcher in perspective - Margaret Thatcher and British politics innovative leadership in policy-making innovative leadership, the state and comparative democracy the concept of innovative leadership.

Tobacco Advertising Bans and the Dark Face of Government Paternalism

This article uses the landmark Chabot judgement to examine the question of the legitimacy of tobacco advertising bans. While Justice Chabot's decision has been subsequently overturned on appeal on a point of law, his findings about the failure of tobacco advertising bans to reduce consumption were sustained. The author argues that such advertising bans are antithetical to the very nature of a democratic society in that, first, they are instances of state paternalism that attempt to supress individual autonomy and diversity through legislating the truth; and second, they are at odds with the legitimate process of democratic public policy inasmuch as they found that public policy to be based on shoddy, biased and unreliable ‘evidence’.

Democracy and Social Choice

The problem ofjustifying democracy arises when a society sees the need for cooperative, collective action. Collective action may be needed to solve coordination problems, public goods problems, Prisoner's Dilemmas, and other structural problems of human interaction or perhaps to realize common ideals of justice in concrete political institutions. Once the need for collective action is established, one must ask how the goals of a cooperative endeavor are to be secured. Cooperation requires that individuals, at least over a specified range of activity, pursue a joint strategy. To assure voluntary compliance in a joint venture, cooperation must be to each person's advantage. However, each person may have an incentive to induce others to cooperate and to defect from the joint strategy in the hope of enjoying the fruits of cooperation without incurring the opportunity costs of compliance. This is the essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and considerations of this sort suggest that if collective action is to succeed, policies or strategies formed collectively must be coercively enforceable. Coercion, however, requires justification. Because solving the problem of rational noncompliance requires that collective decisions be coercively enforceable, the rules by which collective decisions are reached require justification. Douglas Rae neatly puts the problem of justification that emerges when political solutions are coercively enforceable as follows: "Once a political community has decided which of its members are to participate directly in the making of collective policy, an important question remains: 'How many of them must agree before a policy is imposed on the community?"" This is essentially the question to which the principle of democratic rule provides an answer: by what process are collective decisions to be made? Answering Rae's question requires a normative framework. We could say that a procedure for making collective decisions is justified if and

Federalism, Pluralism, and Public Policy

It is not chauvinism or instinctive egocentrism that leads Americans to believe they have evolved a beneficent form of economic organization. For despite all its shortcomings, and, alas, they are all too many, our volitional economy has demonstrated a capacity to stimulate human effort, increase investment, improve productivity, and gradually erode diat greatest evil of all commonwealths, perceived since Plato's days: the coexistence of great wealth and abject poverty. It is therefore entirely appropriate this year, when we are commemorating two great experiments in democratic public policy, that we should examine once again the origins of our polity, for I am convinced that it was the conscious and unashamed acceptance of a system of politico-economic pluralism that made possible the vigor and the catholicity of our developing institutions. The play of these pluralistic forces again and again has saved us from hardened dogma, so that the real virtue of our history—political, economic, and intellectual—has been our flexibility, our capacity to adapt ideas and instrumentalities to tasks of high social urgency. In the process we have created an economy so complex that it almost defies description, but one so tolerant ideologically that it can be called essentially private by those who find happiness in that ascription although there can be no burking the very obvious fact that it is today inherently socialistic. For whereas one can demonstrate statistically that two thirds of all capital formation is private, by an equally plausible demonstration it can be shown that, adding corporate and personal income taxes only, more than two thirds of the revenues of American enterprise are socialized. This mixed economy is, therefore, the great, ever-improving American invention, based on the quintessential content of our variant of democracy whose trinitarian elements have been well defined as shared respect, shared power, and shared knowledge.