|WG_News :: About WG :: Contacts :: Activities :: WG_outputs|
Call for papers 2020
WG Programme Coordinators:
Lesya Ilchenko-Syuyva, Kyiv-Mohyla School of Governance, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Kyiv, Ukraine, firstname.lastname@example.org
Jaroslav Dvorak, Klaipeda University, Klaipeda, Lithuania, Jaroslav.email@example.com
Mihaela Victorita Carausan, National School of Political Sciences and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania, firstname.lastname@example.org
WG Background and Rationale:
In recent years there has been a significant effort to improve decision-making within the public sector by developing capacity in evidence-based policy making in general and policy analysis in particular in CEE, Central Asia and Caucasus countries. However, these efforts are still in their early stages in many countries, and heavily reliant on donor assistance. There continue to be issues both on the demand side (how much governments genuinely want evidence-based policy advice) and on the supply side (e.g., skilled policy analysts, teaching institutions, think tanks).
The Working Group began in 2008 as a Panel Session on Policy Analysis Issues and due to a huge demand grew into an annual Working Group. It has been existing as a WG on Public Policy Analysis Development Issues for almost 10 years as a forum for discussion and a unique opportunity to analyse and compare which factors restrict further development and advancement of evidence-based policy making, institutionalisation of policy analysis procedures as the key factors in ensuring good governance not only in CEE countries. The wide variety of papers and the large number of participants were evidence of the strong interest in evidence-based policy making and policy analysis in the regions. Thus, the WG will continue its activities in supporting a vivid interest of potential stakeholders of evidence-based policy making and institutionalisation of policy analysis procedures to impact on economic, social and political environment in CEE, Central Asia and Caucasus countries and encouraging experience and knowledge exchange on how academics can meet the urgent needs of public servants and civil society.
The goal of the WG is to focus and become a vehicle for discussion and debates around capacity challenges to professional evidence-based public policy making in the countries embraced by NISPAcee but not limited to, institutionalisation of public policy analysis procedures and concrete remedies for those challenges.
For the 28th Annual NISPAcee Conference Governance and citizens' rights
in the era of Europeanisation, globalisation and digitalisation, the WG on EVIDENCE-BASED PUBLIC POLICY MAKING welcomes theoretical, empirical, comparative research papers of academics and practitioners on both diagnosis and possible remedies for shortcomings or bottlenecks of evidence-based policy making in certain countries and/or regions. More specifically, papers may focus on: specific weaknesses/strengths of evidence-based policy making in a single country and/or region, either generally or in specific sectors; institutionalisation and application of policy analysis techniques and methods; comparative analysis of similar challenges faced by a variety of countries (including analysis of instances where capacity-building is being attempted); monitoring and evaluation of public policies experiences in a single country and/or region, and public policy impact analysis in a single country and/or region.
We invite potential authors to focus on the aspects and particularities of evidence-based policy making; policy analysis tools and techniques, monitoring and evaluation experience in a country and/or region in order to increase the practical relevance of the working group and to develop a common base knowledge. The papers must include not only recommendations for further research, but also practical points for practitioners. In this respect, papers written in cooperation between researchers/academics and practitioners are highly welcome.
Recommended structure for all papers:
- Background of the chosen issue.
- Literature review in a given subject or chosen issue/phenomena.
- Objective of the analysis.
- Methodology of the Research.
- Main findings and policy implications.
- Recommendations for further research.
WG Programme Coordinators:
Lesya Ilchenko-Syuyva, National Academy of Public Administration under the President of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
Jaroslav Dvorak, Klaipeda University, Klaipeda, Lithuania
Mihaela Victorita Carausan, National School of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania
Place: 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Prague, Czech Republic
Date: May 24-26, 2019
The Working Group on Evidence-Based Public Policy Making continues its work under the umbrella of the NISPAcee Annual Conferences. This year the WG on PP received 30 applications in the area of the main fields of interest of the WG (impact assessment, sustainable development goals implementation, participation of stakeholders, public policy issues). The following themes were discussed:
- Process of Evidence-based Public Policy Making;
- Public Policy Tools and Mechanisms;
- Evidence-based Public Policy: Country Case Studies;
- Evidence-based Sectoral Policy Making.
The WG remained a constructive, solid, learning forum for academics, policymakers and other stakeholders in exchanging experiences on how academics can meet the urgent needs of public servants, civil society in practice-oriented, evidence-based studies, in preparing and promoting relevant policy advice as well as in upgrading academic and training programmes in public policy analysis.
In all, 22 papers were presented during the conference meetings in Prague which comprised the following separate sessions:
Session 1: Process of Evidence-based Public Policy Making
Session 2: Public Policy Tools and Mechanisms
Session 3: Evidence-based Public Policy: Country Case Studies
Session 4: Evidence-based Public Policy: Country Case Studies
Session 5: Evidence-based Sectoral Policy Making
The quality of the presentations was good and according to modern scientific criteria.
Following the discussions, the WG decided to continue its work in a multi-disciplinary format, concentrating on public policy/evidence-based and strategic management issues.
WG Programme Coordinators:
Jaroslav Dvorak, Klaipeda University, Klaipeda, Lithuania
Mihaela Victoria Carausan, National School of Political Sciences and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania
Place: 26th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Iasi, Romania
Date: May 24-26, 2018
The Working Group on Public Policy Analysis Issues continues its work under the umbrella of the NISPAcee Annual Conferences. The WG received over 16 applications in the area of the main fields of interest of the WG (better regulation, monitoring and evaluation, performance indicators, policy capacity, local policy issues, strategic planning and programming). The following themes were more or less distinguished:
- Evidence based policy development and policy making: what really works in practice.
- Policy design and Implementation: from principal-agent to multi-level governance.
- Evaluation: methods, techniques, tools, results and impact assessment.
- Good implementation of national and local policies.
The WG remained a constructive, solid, learning forum for academics, policymakers and other stakeholders in exchanging experience on how academics can meet the urgent needs of public servants, civil society in practice, oriented evidence-based studies in preparing and promoting relevant policy advice as well as in upgrading academic and training programmes in public policy analysis.
In summary, 13 papers were selected and actually completed for presentation during the conference meetings in Iasi and these were the basis of separate sessions. This is the highest number of papers in the last five years’ existence of the working group (2014-2018). The number of sessions was limited to three sessions focused on:
- Implementing Public Policy Analysis Procedures into Practice;
- Regional and Sectoral Public Policy Making;
- Involving Civil Society in Public Policy Making.
According to the results of the discussions, the WG decided to continue the work in a multi-disciplinary format, concentrating on public policy/evidence-based and strategic management issues. As coordinators of the WG, we think that the outcomes of the WG can be improved if we focus on
1. Strategic public policy making concepts and recipes for policy practice
2. Opportunities and limitations of methodology for public sector performance management, impact assessment on the public sector as a whole.
3. Sectoral policy initiatives in the field of governance and policy with a network role in the CEE region.
In 2018 evidence has shown that we can confidently state that more evidence-based papers will be coming to Prague, as we have seen that the papers delivered were less and less single country case studies and more often comparative and theoretically informed. We suggest that an updated format of the WG would help to find new directions and challenges in public policy and strategic management practice in the central and eastern European region. Co-authored papers written by academics and practitioners are highly encouraged for the next annual conference.
Topic: Public Policy Procedures in the Context of Good Governance
The focus of the discussion in the Working Group was to establish a constructive learning and exchange forum for academics and policymakers. According to this session, theorists and professionals could exchange their experiences of current questions of state administration and public law. Thanks to these discussions and the prepared studies, this group promoted relevant policy advice, as well as upgrading academic programmes in public policy analysis and encouraging the transfer of knowledge on public policy in Central and Eastern Europe.
According to the papers presented in the Working Group, the analysis was expanded to the European Union and its member states and also to Russia and China.
Summaries of working group papers:
1.Investigation - how far the instrumental framework conditions of the EU Twinning Instrument promote or hinder the achievement of reform outcomes.
2. Analysis of the Russian Federal Education Programmes which were adopted during the period 2000-2020. It also concerned academic mobility, the Bologna process, and summarised the Russian Government’s policy on the development of academic mobility.
3. Focus on constitutional identity as it is understood and construed in the constitutional theory and practice of EU Member States. The most important question is which institution (national or EU) has the scope of authority to decide on what the constitutional identity of a Member State is, and when does an EU act or measure confront that constitutional identity?
Outcomes and future plans:
In comparing the working groups over the last years, the conclusion is that the aforementioned working group entitled ‘Public Policy Analysis Development Issues Public Policy Procedures in the Context of Good Governance’ was general, and determined a wide range of subjects. This working group could include several fields of public policy (e.g. health management; financial background; quality of administration; transparency; central government, and good government). This conformation could create an excellent platform — in spite of its generality — for in-depth scientific discussions and for the exchange of experiences.
The formation of this working group was active and at the same time, colourful. For the future, my proposal is to establish a new working group concerning the theory of ‘deep state’ not only in the United States, but also according to the academic and professional political background of Europe, and its effects on the institutions of the European Union.
The Working Group on Public Policy Analysis Issues continues its work under the umbrella of NISPAcee Annual Conferences. This year the WG on PP received more than 20 applications in the area of main fields of interest of the WG. Roughly, the following themes could be distinguished::
-Knowledge and information in policy analysis
-Procedures of policy design and coordination
-Evidence based policy analysis, development and implementation
-Case studies of the application of techniques (e.g., stakeholder analysis, regulatory impact assessment, ex ante impact assessment, policy evaluation)
-Paths forward and problems in public policy capacity building
-Public administration in ensuring good governance.
The Working Group still remained a forum for academic and practitioners in exchanging experience on how academics can meet urgent needs of public servants in practice oriented studies in preparing and promoting relevant policy advice as well as in upgrading academic and training programs in public policy analysis.
All in all, 12 papers were selected and actually completed for presentation during the conference meetings in Budapest that formed for separate sessions. As not all presenters were able to come to Budapest, the number of sessions was limited to three sessions focused on:
-General Knowledge and information in policy-analysis
-Democratic Governance and Auditing
-Implementation and Evaluation.
According to the results of discussion the WG decided to continue the work in the same format but with an accent on practical application of the presented results. Coauthored papers done by academics and practitioner are highly encouraged for the next annual conference.
The WG PPA continued discussions on which factors restrict the further development of policy analysis, who are the potential stakeholders of policy analysis, how the current stage of policy analysis in a particular country impacts on economic, social and political environment, and how these challenges can be overcome (i.e. through upgrading academic, training and retraining programmes).
- policy analysis (practice and theory),
- perspectives on the policy process,
- policy design and policy instruments, and
- evaluation and regulatory impact assessment.
David Elder, Queen´s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Valeriy Tertychka, National Academy of Public Administration, Office of the President of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
Date: May 12-14, 2010
During the 2010 NISPAcee Annual Conference, the Working Group primarily focused on the main challenges the CEE, Central Asia and Caucasus countries presently face:
methods and tools of public policy analysis on various government levels: supranational (i.e. EU experience), national and local;
experiences in developing and circulating policy communication documents (i.e. white papers, green papers, policy papers etc.);
institutional framework of regulatory impact assessment (hereinafter - RIA)procedures;
ex-post policy analysis (policy monitoring and evaluation).
All in all, more than 40 representatives took part in the Working Group sessions. Practitioners and researchers from more than 10 countries showed an interest in the topic and 14 speakers presented their papers on the various elements of sectoral public policy analysis.