Public Agendas and Policy Agendas in Three Western European Countries: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-392
Author(s):  
Andrea Pritoni
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
Government Decision ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Crucial Component ◽  
High Government ◽  
Policy Agendas ◽  
The Uk

AbstractIn any democratic system, the question of whether governments pay attention to citizens’ needs and requests represents a crucial component of democratic quality. But what conditions favour this fundamental democratic process? This article compares policy priorities identified by public opinion with the actual legislative production in Italy, Spain and the UK from 2003 to 2012. The article’s methodology is a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in which causal conditions are represented by politico-institutional and contextual factors, while the outcome consists of the degree of overlap between public opinion priorities and legislation. Empirical analysis shows that there are four paths leading to a correspondence in priorities: first, it is linked to the combination of high government decision-making capacity and declining citizens’ trust in government; second, it is also linked to the combination of rising citizens’ trust and low government decision-making capacity. Third and fourth, priorities also correspond where there is a simultaneous absence of both trust and elections, and in the absence of both decision-making capacity and elections, respectively.

scholarly journals Biotechnology policy in European countries: An assessment

10.5912/jcb92 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Zechendorf
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Knowledge Base ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Innovation Policy ◽  
Regulatory Policy ◽  
European Countries ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Policy Agendas ◽  
The Uk

For more than 20 years, all major European governments have put biotechnology as a priority on their innovation policy agendas. How did each of the three big countries – France, the UK and Germany – manage their biotechnology policy, and what results have they achieved? A project funded by the European Commission tried to find out by assessing, over the period 1994–2001, the development of the knowledge base, patent activities, technology transfer measures, regulatory policy, industry promotion measure and public opinion. By adding data from other sources, the author presents a dynamic picture of each country's policy and development up to 2003.

Neuropsychological profile of entrepreneurs

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esteban R. Brenes ◽  
Gabriel Rodríguez ◽  
Joseph Acuña ◽  
Yadira Villalobos ◽  
Caleb A. Pichardo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Flexibility ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Government Institutions ◽  
Neuropsychological Profile ◽  
Neuropsychological Characteristics

PurposeBy analyzing variables from the fields of business and neuropsychology, this document examines alternative combinations of behavioral economics and neuropsychological characteristics that would explain a successful entrepreneurial profile.Design/methodology/approachThe research is based on information gathered through a survey of 1,080 entrepreneurs. The findings offer interesting perspectives for academics, professionals and government institutions, which illustrate various neuropsychological characteristics that a person must have to be a successful entrepreneur. The method consists of a novel perspective that integrates qualitative comparative analysis (QCAs), a method based on Boolean algebra that offers a study from a configurational perspective.FindingsFrom the mixture of configurations, the paper explores following possible traits of an entrepreneurial mindset: cognitive flexibility, risk-taking, decision-making and teamwork.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature on emerging attempts and approaches to understand the entrepreneurial mindset and the possible skillset that underpins successful entrepreneurship.

Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Discovering Core Combinations of Conditions in Political Decision Making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benoît Rihoux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
New Techniques ◽  
The Core ◽  
Minimization Algorithms ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Political Decision Making

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was launched in the late 1980s by Charles Ragin, as a research approach bridging case-oriented and variable-oriented perspectives. It conceives cases as complex combinations of attributes (i.e. configurations), is designed to process multiple cases, and enables one to identify, through minimization algorithms, the core equifinal combinations of conditions leading to an outcome of interest. It systematizes the analysis in terms of necessity and sufficiency, models social reality in terms of set-theoretic relations, and provides powerful logical tools for complexity reduction. It initially came along with one technique, crisp-set QCA (csQCA), requiring dichotomized coding of data. As it has expanded, the QCA field has been enriched by new techniques such as multi-value QCA (mvQCA) and especially fuzzy-set QCA (fsQCA), both of which enable finer-grained calibration. It has also developed further with diverse extensions and more advanced designs, including mixed- and multimethod designs in which QCA is sequenced with focused case studies or with statistical analyses. QCA’s emphasis on causal complexity makes it very fit to address various types of objects and research questions touching upon political decision making—and indeed QCA has been applied in multiple related social scientific fields. While QCA can be exploited in different ways, it is most frequently used for theory evaluation purposes, with a streamlined protocol including a sequence of core operations and good practices. Several reliable software options are also available to implement the core of the QCA procedure. However, given QCA’s case-based foundation, much researcher input is still required at different stages. As it has further developed, QCA has been subject to fierce criticism, especially from a mainstream statistical perspective. This has stimulated further innovations and refinements, in particular in terms of parameters of fit and robustness tests which also correspond to the growth of QCA applications in larger-n designs. Altogether the field has diversified and broadened, and different users may exploit QCA in various ways, from smaller-n case-oriented uses to larger-n more analytic uses, and following different epistemological positions regarding causal claims. This broader field can therefore be labeled as that of both “Configurational Comparative Methods” (CCMs) and “Set-Theoretic Methods” (STMs).

scholarly journals Institutions and coalitions in policy processes: a cross-sectoral comparison

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Institutional Conditions ◽  
Phase Lead ◽  
Coalition Structures ◽  
Institutional Void ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Dominant Coalition

AbstractActors with joint beliefs in a decision-making process form coalitions in order to translate their goals into policy. Yet, coalitions are not formed in an institutional void, but rather institutions confer opportunities and constraints to actors. This paper studies the institutional conditions under which either coalition structures with a dominant coalition or with competing coalitions emerge. It takes into account three conditions, i.e. the degree of federalism of a project, its degree of Europeanisation and the openness of the pre-parliamentary phase of the decision-making process. The cross-sectoral comparison includes the 11 most important decision-making processes in Switzerland between 2001 and 2006 with a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Results suggest that Europeanisation or an open pre-parliamentary phase lead to a dominant coalition, whereas only a specific combination of all three conditions is able to explain a structure with competing coalitions.

scholarly journals Politics without bureaucrats? Western European NGO campaigns in the state and the market

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Francesca Colli
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Fuzzy Set ◽  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
The State ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Western European ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an important role in the representation of citizens' interests towards policymakers. However, they increasingly run their campaigns not only against policymakers, but also against corporations. While the choice among strategies has been examined either in the state (targeting policymakers) or in the market (targeting companies), the choice between the two remains unexamined. Moreover, conventional studies of advocacy have failed to comparatively assess how groups combine strategies. This study fills these gaps, examining when NGOs target their campaigns at (a) the market, (b) the state and (c) both. It examines 24 NGO campaigns in the UK and Italy using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. Three main findings emerge. First, structural factors – especially the openness of the market – are most important in determining which target an NGO chooses. Second, campaigns that combine strategies tend to be either market- or state-oriented. Finally, high resources are the factor that pushes NGOs to combine strategies across the market and the state.

The 1997 White Paper: a symbolic victory?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Worthy
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Connected Group ◽  
Rapid Process ◽  
Government Decision ◽  
The World ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Levels Of Support ◽  
Opening Up

In the UK FOI policy developed in a series of phases. This chapter covers the first stage of the development covered the first eight months, from Labour entering power in May 1997 to the publication of the White Paper Your Right to Know in December 1997. At this point, FOI appeared to avoid the ‘symbolic’ trap and overt conflict so frequently seen elsewhere. A small, well-connected group of crusaders inside government took advantage of their own power and used a favourable context to neutralise opposition, with a rapid process lending momentum to a far-Reaching policy. Their efforts resulted in a hugely symbolic White Paper, rapidly formulated, that offered one of the most radical FOI regimes yet seen in the world. The vision was of a political redistribution of power opening up even the very centre of government decision-making (Terrill 2000). However, doubts remained over the policy, its workability and the levels of support for it in government.

The Hungarian Agendas Project

2019 ◽  
pp. 105-113
Author(s):  
Zsolt Boda ◽  
Miklós Sebők
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Political Development ◽  
Relative Length ◽  
Hungarian Academy ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Policy Agendas ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Public Opinion Polls ◽  
Opinion Polls

The chapter presents the Hungarian Comparative Agendas Project. It delineates its origins at the Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and situates it in the context of Hungarian political science. The project developed numerous databases, including those on budgets, laws, decrees, parliamentary speeches, newspaper articles, and public opinion polls. Due to the post-communist political development of Hungary our country project shows some specificities vis-à-vis more established projects. First, the codebook includes a few country-specific minor topic codes (such as those related to post-communist restitution) that are directly linked in to the comparative codebook (therefore our results remain fully comparable). Second, one added value of some of our datasets is their relative length which—in some cases—covers multiple centuries as well as various political regimes, including non-democratic ones. This allows for not only cross-country comparative analysis but also for comparing policy agendas in different regimes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document