Policy Arenas and Budgetary Politics

With the onset of climate change, the prospect of mass extinction, and the closing window of opportunity to take meaningful action, a growing number of activists, lawyers, scientists, policy-makers, and everyday people are calling for Rights of Nature (RoN) to be legally recognized as a way to transform human legal and governance systems to prioritize ecological sustainability. Over the past decade, RoN has gone from being a radical idea espoused only by a handful of marginalized actors to a legal strategy seriously considered in a wide variety of domestic and international policy arenas. In January 2021, at least 185 legal provisions recognizing RoN existed in 17 countries spanning five continents, and 50 more RoN laws were pending in a dozen other countries. RoN is also recognized in numerous international policy documents. After defining RoN, this chapter examines how different kinds of actors have organized in global networks to advance RoN in different policy arenas through distinct pathways. This has caused RoN to be structured and implemented differently in distinct contexts. The chapter examines this variation, comparing cases from around the world. It highlights the implications of structuring RoN as a set of unique substantive rights for ecosystems versus extending legal personhood (a set of rights designed for humans). It concludes by examining the relationship between RoN and human rights—including environmental rights, Indigenous rights, and economic rights—and the implications for reconceptualizing sustainable development to prioritize ecological sustainability.

Download Full-text

Feminist Foreign Policy: Contributions and Lessons

10.19088/k4d.2021.110 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jacqueline Hicks

Keyword(s):

Foreign Policy ◽

Development Assistance ◽

Gender Mainstreaming ◽

Rapid Review ◽

Policy Advocacy ◽

High Profile ◽

Defence Policy ◽

Context Specific ◽

Implementation Plans ◽

Policy Arenas

A relatively small number of countries have an explicit “Feminist Foreign Policy” (FFP). Those most often cited are Sweden, Canada, France, Mexico, and Spain. In theory, an FFP moves beyond gender mainstreaming in foreign development assistance to include: (1) a wider range of external actions, including defence, trade and diplomacy (2) a wider range of marginalised people, not just women. Within foreign development assistance, it implies a more coherent and systematically institutionalised approach to gender mainstreaming. In practice, those countries with an explicit FFP implement it in different ways. Canada currently focuses on development assistance, France on development assistance and formal diplomacy, Sweden more comprehensively covers the trade and defence policy arenas. Mexico and Spain are yet to produce detailed implementation plans. There is increasing academic interest in FFP, but most analyses found during the course of this rapid review focus on narrative content of policies rather than impact. Policy advocacy and advice is provided by several high-profile advocacy organisations. National government agencies in Sweden, France and Canada have produced some evaluations of their FFP, but the evidence is weak. There are many international institution evaluations of gender mainstreaming for many different sectors that are context-specific.

Download Full-text

Using Knowledge for Control in Fragmented Policy Arenas

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management ◽

10.2307/3323934 ◽

1984 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

pp. 225 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

Janet A. Weiss ◽

Judith E. Gruber

Keyword(s):

Policy Arenas

Download Full-text

Results of Documentary Analysis Policy Arenas

New Public Management (NPM) and the Introduction of an Accrual Accounting System - SpringerBriefs in Accounting ◽

10.1007/978-3-030-57386-7_5 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 57-75

Author(s):

Adriana Bruno

Keyword(s):

Documentary Analysis ◽

Policy Arenas

Download Full-text

Credit as a Tool of Statecraft

American Bonds ◽

10.23943/princeton/9780691156750.003.0004 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 69-87

Author(s):

Sarah L. Quinn

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Central Government ◽

National Level ◽

The United States ◽

State Building ◽

Public Private Partnerships ◽

Credit Allocation ◽

Self Help ◽

Farm Credit ◽

Policy Arenas

This chapter shows how Progressives returned to the issue of farm credit distribution in the early 1900s and drew on European precedents to reframe credit allocation as a way for the central government to help people help themselves. American Progressives thus replaced their earlier, more radical farm credit politics with a more moderate vision of government-supported credit as an inexpensive way of supporting self-help. The chapter then considers the Federal Farm Loan Act (FFLA). Compared with other hallmarks of Progressive Era state building, the FFLA seems relatively unimportant. Nevertheless, it was a turning point in the use of selective credit as a tool of federal statecraft in the United States. The FFLA provided federal credit on a national level that was administered through public–private partnerships and bolstered by tax expenditures. By tracing the lead-up to this policy, one can see how Progressives forged a new array of cultural and organizational approaches to federal credit that would later proliferate across policy arenas.

Download Full-text

Explorations in Intersectional Policymaking

Race, Gender, and Political Representation ◽

10.1093/oso/9780197502174.003.0005 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 119-146

Author(s):

Beth Reingold

Keyword(s):

Criminal Justice ◽

Urban Communities ◽

Low Income ◽

Women Of Color ◽

Mass Incarceration ◽

State Legislators ◽

Small Subset ◽

Democratic State ◽

Boys Of Color ◽

Policy Arenas

Chapter 5 explores the concept of intersectional policymaking further by examining closely the content of legislation sponsored by a small subset of Democratic state legislators serving majority-minority constituencies in California, New Jersey, and Texas in 1997 and 2005. What might intersectional policymaking look like and who practices it? The analysis uncovers a wide variety of intersectional proposals, spanning multiple policy arenas and addressing many different problems arising from multiple, intersecting forms of inequality and marginalization. Particularly notable are measures concerning the health and welfare of women of color, immigrants, and others often disproportionately located within low-income communities, as well as criminal justice measures taking on issues of over-policing and mass incarceration that disproportionately affect men and boys of color in similar low-income, urban communities. Most lawmakers in this subsample sponsor at least one intersectional bill, but women of color stand out as the most reliable practitioners of intersectional advocacy.

Download Full-text