Professorship of Forest Policy and Forest Resource Economics COST FP 1207 WG1 Working Group Meeting Prof. Dr. Norbert Weber Prague, November 13-14, 2013.

Professorship of Forest Policy and Forest Resource Economics

COST FP 1207 WG1 Working Group Meeting

Prof. Dr. Norbert Weber

Prague, November 13-14, 2013

Introduction

• Welcome• Minute taker• List of attendees• Adoption of the agenda

Agenda

1. Discussion of presentations and posters (special purpose of the meeting)

2. Publication strategy– Country reports (synthesis reports)– State-of-the-art report– Special Issue in JFPE

3. Forest terminology and semantic wiki

4. AOB

21.04.23 4

21.04.23 5

Country-related synthesis reports

• General information• Forest-related policy research• Forest legislation and policy (actors, issues)• Forest-related policy transposition (NFP, Natura 2000, EU

Forest Strategy, EU Timber regulation…)• Further aspects (e.g. distinction between forest-focused and

forest-related issues)

21.04.23 6

Setting of WG 1

• Forest-related policy targets and measures: – qualitative research on the implementation of forest-

related policy targets and measures (state-of-art by the international expert team and country reports by national teams);

– recommendations to deal with vertical and horizontal subsidiarity;

– interaction with WG2 for the formulation of the requirements for policy modelling and analysis tools.

What is our common interest in WG 1?

Forest-related policy targets and measures: – qualitative research on the implementation of forest-

related policy targets and measures (state-of-art by the international expert team and country reports by national teams);

– recommendations to deal with vertical and horizontal subsidiarity;

– interaction with WG2 for the formulation of the requirements for policy modeling and analysis tools.

STSM Short Term Scientific Mission for COST Action FP1207

• Authors: Dr. Luc Boerboom* ([email protected]), Johann Rathke***, MSc ([email protected]) [email protected]) and Dr. Valentina Ferretti** (

• Title: Forest policy and policy science: mapping policy concepts and theoretical perspectives

• Part 1: Development of concept domains. Applicant Dr. Luc Boerboom • Part 2: Elaboration of concept domains into concept maps. Applicant

Dr. Valentina Ferretti

21.04.23 9

Policy analysis might result in uncomfortable news…

Excerpt from the protocol of WG 1 meeting on 18 June 2013

d) Special issue• Selected scientific papers according to the COST Action’s

topic shall be collected in a special issue of the Journal of Forest Policy and Economics. Therefore, a WG meeting is planned for November 2013.

21.04.23 11

21.04.23 15

AOB

• Looking for further contributions for the special issue?• Country reports• STSM ideas• Time and venue of the next meeting

21.04.23 16

21.04.23 17

Tasks of WG 1 – to be elaborated more in detail

Outcome-oriented issues• Identifying best practices and gaps in forest policy formulation and

evaluation on national/subnational level• Assessing processes around forest policy in multi-level systems

(pan-European - EU – national - subnational)

Research-oriented issues• state of the art in forest policy analysis in the participating countries• Recommendations for modelling forest policy processes

– Agent-based modelling?– …

Next steps

• Call for participation in the working group• Selection of international experts• Selection of national experts• One-page info for national members (using text from the

MoUs)• Defining requirements for WGs• Workshop “policy targets and measures” to be held in 2013• Special issue “state of the art and country reports”• Identifying candidates and themes for the STSMs

21.04.23 19

COST FP 1207 ORCHESTRA:

WG 1 Forest-related policy targets and measures

21.04.23 20

Working Group 1: Reporting System

21.04.23 21

21.04.23 22

Bypassing national forest policy

Rathke 2013

Policy Research and Analysis

Paradigms Major Objective “Client” Common

Style Time Constraints

General Weakness

Academic Social Science Research

Construct theories for understanding society

“Truth,” as defined by the disciplines, other scholars

Rigorous methods for constructing and testing theories; usually retrospective

Rarely external time constraints

Often irrelevant to information needs of decision makers

Policy Research

Predict impacts of changes in variables that can be altered by public policy

Actors in the policy arena; the related disciplines

Application of formal methodology to policy-relevant questions; prediction of consequences

Sometimes deadline pressure, perhaps mitigated by issue recurrence

Difficulty in translating findings into government action

Policy Analysis

Systematic comparison and evaluation of alternatives available to public actors for solving social problems

Specific person or institution as decision maker

Synthesis of existing research and theory to predict consequences of alternative policies

Strong deadline pressure— completion of analysis usually tied to specific decision

Myopia resulting from client orientation and time pressure

Weimer & Vining 2011, modifiedPolicy Evaluation

Professorship of Forest Policy and Forest Resource Economics

Thank you for your attention!

•[email protected]

PROBLEM ANALYSIS

1. Understanding the problem

2. Choosing and explaining relevant goals and constraints.

3. Choosing a solution method.

(a) Receiving the problem: assessing the symptoms.(b) Framing the problem: analyzing market and government failures.(c) Modeling the problem: identifying policy variables.

COMMUNICATIONConveying usefulAdvice to clients

SOLUTION ANALYSIS

4. Choosing evaluation criteria

5. Specifying policy alternatives

6. Evaluating: predicting impacts of alternatives and valuing them in terms of criteria

7. Recommending actions.

INFORMATION GATHERINGIdentifying and organizing relevant data, theories and facts; using facts as evidence about future consequences of current and alternative policies.

Figure 8.1:A summary ofSteps in the Rationalist Mode

(Weimer & Vining, 1992)

Weimer & Vining 2011

Weimer & Vining 2011

Theories of the Policy-making Process

• The first generation of policy-making process theories

– Scientific-rational model– Incrementalist model– Garbage can model

• The second generation of policy-making process theories

– Comprehensive rational model– The stages heuristic model– New Institutionalism model– The multiple stream model– The discourse model

Analytic-Technical Perspective

Interpretive-Political Perspective

Critical-Discursive Perspective

Policy Making

Comprehensive Rational Model

Political Approach

New institutionalism

State Theory

Multi-Stream & Policy window Approach

Discourse Approach

Argumentation

Frame

Rhetoric

Narrative

Perspectives and Processes in Policy Studies

Processes for sustainable development and the international forest regime

http://www.fao.org/forestry/13551-02fc7911f88b28bc54b804ba382712c38.gif

UNFF

WTO free trade-regime

UN-CBD-regime

UN-FCCC-regime

Other implicit and explicit rules, norms and principles relating to forests

FOREST

F

Fragmented IFR-C

F

F

FF

F

F

Giessen 2011

International Forest Regime Complex

Excursion: Intensity of forest discourses

Arts et al. 2010

Policy science is about recognizing patterns…

Forest Strategy 2050 for Saxony

Forest Strategy 2050 for Saxony

Background– International Year of Forests 2011– Forest Strategy 2020 of the Federal Government

(adopted in 2011)

Rationale– demonstration of solutions to reconcile the natural potential

of Saxonian forests and the expected societal demands– Strategy of the Saxonian Government– 11 fields of action

Waldstrategie 2050 Sachsen

Forest Strategy 2050 for Saxony (2)

Developed on the basis of …

– Actual results of science and research– Opinions of the Landesforstwirtschaftsrat– Opinions of further partners with economic and

social interests affected by the strategy


Forest Strategy 2050: Fields of action

• Forest area• Forest ownership• Forest structure• Continuity of forest functions• Potential of wood from forests• Forest and nature conservation• Forest and recreation• Forest and employment• Forest and innovation• Forest and environmental education• General orientation for forests and forestry


„Your opinion towards the Forest Strategy 2050“

All citizens are welcome to Communicate their opinion to the State Ministry of Environment and Agriculture until April 30, 2013

participation on level two

Groups of actors influencing forest policies

• Ministeries, Authorities, Administrations • Forest Owners and Landowners‘ Associations• Associations of the Forest and Paper Industries• Associations of Forest Professionals and Trade Unions • Hunting Associations• Environmental and Nature Conservation Organizations

• Regional planning• Tourism and sports• Water supply• Further organizations

Accredited organisations of

Nature Conservation

(according to § 56

SächsNatSchG)

Working Group Conservation (LAG)

Representation

Expert Opinion (§57 (1) SächsNatSchG)

opinions

Justification in case of nonconsideration

Nomination for the members of the advisory

board

Advisory Boards for Nature Conservation

Authorities for Nature Conservation

Chaired by the respective head of the nature conservation agency

Gu

id -an

ce

Participation in Nature Conservation

Advisory Board for Hunting

State Ministry of Environment and Agriculture

Highest hunting authority

advisory funkction

Advisory Board for Hunting

Strategic alliance:Concerted opinion against the draft of the new hunting act

- Saxonian forest owners‘ association- Landowners‘ association- Saxonian Forestry Association- Forestry Professionals- PEFC Saxony- Association of ecological hunting- Working group on close-to-nature forestry- Environmental NGO for forests- Environmental NGO (Saxonian group of FoE)- local NGO

Quelle: Forst und Holz Nr. 20, 1998

Forest Policy Program of Saxony, 1998

• Elaborated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests• Consisted of general principles and objectives of the Saxonian

forest policy• Multifunctional forestry as sustainable, close-to-nature and

environmental friendly land use• Preservation of forests as principal aim• Mulit-functional forestry includes sustainability, equal ranking

and simultaneity of forest functions

Parlamentarische Exkursion 21.09.2011

• Im Staatsbetrieb Sachsenforst waren zum

• 1.12. 2009 insgesamt 1541 Mitarbeiter fest

• oder befristet (davon acht auf Projekt- und

• acht auf Drittmittelstellen) sowie in Ausbildungsverhältnissen

• (167, davon 141 Auszubildende

• zum Forstwirt, zwei Auszubildende

• zum Gärtner in den Forstbaumschulen, zwei

• Auszubildende zum Zootierpfleger im Wildgehege

• Moritzburg sowie zehn Referendare

• und zwölf Forstinspektoranwärter) beschäftigt

• Nach dem Beschäftigtenstatus handelte es

• sich dabei um 334 Beamte, 379 TV-L-Beschäftigte

• 1 sowie 661 TV-Forst-Beschäftigte 2.

• Bei rechnerischer Berücksichtigung der Teilzeitbeschäftigung,

• insbesondere wegen des

• bis 31. 12. 2010 geltenden Bezirkstarifvertrages

• im Bereich des TV-Forst, ergeben sich

• daraus 1261,81 Vollzeitäquivalente.

Forest Policy in Germany

• The Federal Republic of Germany is a federal state. Responsibility for the forests thus mainly lies with the Länder (the regional state). While the Federal Government merely sets the forest policy framework, the Länder are responsible for the formulation and implementation of concrete forest policy targets. Federal responsibility falls under the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV) its objective is to secure the positive development of forestry and the timber industry in order to benefit the climate, quality of life, innovation and jobs.

Lawrence & Dudley 2012

• SBS: 1515 Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in zwölf Schutzgebieten und drei Schutzgebietsverwaltungen

• 108 Staatswald und 63 Privat- und Körperschaftswaldreviere

SBS, Geschäftsbericht 2010

BAFU Schweiz 2008

Einbettung und Abgrenzung der Ressourcenpolitik Holz

7Policy Process Study:Policy-Making Study

EDM 6209

Policy Study in Education



Discursive-Critical Perspective

Policy Making

Policy Implementation

Policy Evaluation


Theories of the Policy-making Process

• The first generation of policy-making process theories

– Scientific-rational model– Incrementalist model– Garbage can model

• The second generation of policy-making process theories

– Comprehensive rational model– The stages heuristic model– New Institutionalism model– The multiple stream model– The discourse model

Policy-making Theory I: Comprehensive Rationalist Perspective

• Comprehensive rational framework: The ideal-typical framework

– Problem analysis• Pathology control approach

• Desirability striving approach

– Comprehensive information gathering– Solution analysis

• Best solution approach

• Satisfice approach


• Harold Lasswells’ intelligence system for policy making– Intelligence: The stage of intelligence collection, which

consists of• Information of the status quo of the phenomenon to be

intervene

• Information of causal relations among vital constituents in operation within the policy phenomenon

• Information of the feasibility of candidate solutions

• Cost-benefit analysis of candidate solutions


• Harold Lasswells’ intelligence system for policy making– Promotion: The stage of considering the pros and cons of

candidate solutions– Prescription: The stage of making decision on the

prescription of the course of action to be taken– Invocation: The stage of laying down the rules and regulations

based upon which the policy prescriptions can be invoked – Application: The stage of carrying out the course of action

stipulated in the policy by the designated authority.– Termination: The stage of bringing the course of action to a

close as designed– Appraisal: The stage of evaluating the effectiveness or/even

efficiency of the policy measures.

PROBLEM ANALYSIS

1. Understanding the problem

2. Choosing and explaining relevant goals and constraints.

3. Choosing a solution method.

(a) Receiving the problem: assessing the symptoms.(b) Framing the problem: analyzing market and government failures.(c) Modeling the problem: identifying policy variables.

COMMUNICATIONConveying usefulAdvice to clients

SOLUTION ANALYSIS

4. Choosing evaluation criteria

5. Specifying policy alternatives

6. Evaluating: predicting impacts of alternatives and valuing them in terms of criteria

7. Recommending actions.

INFORMATION GATHERINGIdentifying and organizing relevant data, theories and facts; using facts as evidence about future consequences of current and alternative policies.

Figure 8.1:A summary ofSteps in the Rationalist Mode

(Weimer & Vining, 1992)

Policy-making Theory II: Political Perspective

• Criticism on comprehensive rational framework by incrementalism and the introduction of political rationality into the policy process study

• Conceptual difference between political rationality and means-end rationality

– Means-end rationality refers to agency that a person acts in a conscious and knowledgeable “way in which the attainment of his goal can be maximized in the real world.” (Dahl & Lindblom, 1992, p.57)

– Political rationality refers to the agency that the person will make conscious and knowledgeable consideration of the political reality and its entailed constraints and opportunities, within which the maximization of the means-to-an-end / satisfice project is carried out.


• The new institutionalism framework of decision-making study– New institutionalism can be characterized as approaches in

social science “developed in reaction to the behavioural perspectives that were influential during the 1960s and 1970s and all seeks to elucidate the role that institutions play in the determination of social and political outcome.” (Hall & Taylor, 1996, p. 936)

– As these approaches apply to public policy study, it emerges as a reaction to the means-end rational calculation model and argues that policy making process is not a pre-dominant rational calculating process. They asserted that policy making processes should be conceived predominantly as institutional processes; hence they are by definition influenced if not determined by the features, structures and cultures of the institutions, in which the policy making processes are supposed to undergo.

Policy-making Theory II: Political Perspective• The new institutionalism framework of decision-

making study

– Decision-making as rule following: The logic of appropriateness

• James March’s thesis of dual bases of decision making

– Decision-making as rational calculation of preferences and self-interests governed by the Logic Consequence

– Decision-making as rule following governed by the Logic of Appropriateness

Policy-making Theory II: Political Perspective• The new institutionalism framework of

decision-making study – The logic of appropriateness…

• Logic of appropriateness:

“When individuals and organizations fulfill identities, they follow rules or procedures that they see as appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves. Neither preference as they are normally conceived nor expectations of future consequences enter directly into the calculus.” (March, 1994, p. 57)

Policy-making Theory II: Political Perspective• The new institutionalism framework of decision-

making study – The logic of appropriateness…

• Three basic questions in decision-making under the logic of appropriateness: (p.58)

– The question of recognition: What kind of situation is this?

– The question of identity: What kind of person am I? Or what kind of organization is this?

– The question of rules: What does a person such as I, or an organization such as this, do in a situation as this?


• The new institutionalism framework of decision-making study

– Pluralism: The simple institutional model• The general political system model: Pluralism as a theory of

policy making or politics in general is generated from the political system model. In political system model, political process is characterized as input-process-output-feedback model.

• Pluralistic model characterizes the policy making with the following attributes

– Plurality of interest groups each with equal capacities in inputting political demands into the polity

– The polity processes the plurality of political demands in impartial and indiscriminant manner

– Plurality of administrative output to meet with plurality of political demands



– The action arena model (Ostrom, Gardner, and Walker, 1994): The action arena model reformulates the pluralist model by asserting that political actors in policy making process are not totally free and autonomous individuals but are confined in action arenas

• Actors in action arena are endowed with different resources and information. They also bring with different valuation into the arena. As a result, different actors may and mostly will select different course of actions.



– The action arena model• Within an action arena a particular action situation will be

constituted. The constituents of an action situation may includes

– The set of participants

– The specific positions to be filled by participants

– The set of allowable actions and their linkage to outcome

– The potential outcomes that are linked to individual sequence of actions

– The level of control each participant has over choice

– The costs and benefits, which serve as incentives and deterrents, assigned to actions and outcomes

Physical/Material Conditions

Attributes of Community

Rules-in-Use

ActionSituations

Actors

Action Arena

Patterns ofInteractions

Outcomes

EvaluativeCriteria

Figure 3.1 A Framework for Institutional AnalysisSOURCE: Adapted from Ostrom, Gardner, and Walker (1994, p. 37).

(Sabatier, 1999, Figure 3.1)



– The policy network model This model characterizes that policy actors in policy making

process are not act separately and independently. They will form networks and communities on the base of common policy focus, shared policy stance, related vested policy interest.

– Advocacy coalition model This model further specifies that the networking among

policy actors in policy making process by put forth the concept of advocacy coalition. It indicates that policy actors will form coalition in order to advocate a particular policy choice. These coalitions will subsequently constitute a stabilizing parameter or institutional inertia within a policy area.

RELATIVELY STABLE PERAMETERS

1. Basic attributes of the problem area (good)

2. Basic distribution of natural resources

3. Fundamental socio-cultural values and social structure

4. Basic Constitutional structure (rules)

EXTERNAL (SYSTEM) EVENTS

1. Changes in socio-economic conditions

2. Changes in public opinion

3. Changes in systemic governing coalition

4. Policy decisions and impacts from other subsystems

Degree of consensus needed for

major policy change

Constraints

And

Resources

Of

Subsystem

Actors

POLICY SUBSYSTEM

Coalition A Policy Coalition B

Brokersa. Policy beliefs

b. Resources

a. Policy beliefs

b. ResourcesStrategy A1 re guidance instruments

Strategy B1 re guidance instrumentsDecisions by

Governmental Authorities

Institutional Rules, ResourceAllocations, and Appointments

Policy Outputs

Policy Impacts

(Sabatier, 1999, Figure 6.4)

Policy-making Theory II: Political Perspective• The state theory

State theorists criticize pluralism and political system of treating the state as a blackbox or an impartial arbitrator of political demands. In replacement, they put forth different thesis on the natures and features of the modern state

– The instrumental-state perspective

– The corporatist-state perspective

– The derivative-state perspective

(To be explicated in details in Topic 10)

Policy-Making Theory III: Multiple Stream Approach

• The approach grows out of the Garbage Can Model, which is another alternate policy-process model to the scientific-rational model in the 1970s. The primary assumption of the model is the emphasis on the ambiguity nature of the policy phenomena.

• By ambiguity, it refers to “a state of having many way of thinking about the same circumstances or phenomena.” (Feldman, 1989, quoted in Zahariadis, 1999, p.74) The concept of ambiguity differs from the concept of uncertainty, which is one of the constituent concept in rational model, is that uncertainty can be reduced or even eliminated by information and analysis of it, while ambiguity on policy phenomena cannot be reduced by information but in some case may even enhance it.


• Another essential assumption of the approach is that policy issues or even problems are not attended in an analytic-rational way as the scientific-rational model assumes. The garbage-can and multiple-stream models stress that the logic of approaching policy issue is temporal sorting and not rational choice.

“Who pays attention to what and when is critical. Time is a unique, scarce resource. Because the primary concern of decision-makers …is to manage time effectively rather than manage tasks. It is reasonable to pursue a lens (approach) that accords significance to time rather than to rationality.” (Zahariadis, 1999, p.74)


• John Kingdon’s three streams in policy making– Problem: It refers to the conditions or mechanism on which policy

makers identify, define and take action on a policy problem. They include

• Indicators• Dramatic events or crisis• Feedback of existing programs

– Policy: It refers to the conditions spawned from the policy issues or phenomena themselves. They include

• Policy ideas generated from policy communities• The prospect of technical feasibility and value acceptability of the policy

itself

– Politics: It refers to the conditions grow out of the political environment. They include

• National mood• Legislative and executive turnover


• John Kingdon’s three streams in policy making– The conception of the coupling of the streams and the

formation of “policy window”. Kingdon signifies that when the three streams are joined together at critical moments in time, they will constitute a “policy window”. As a “policy window” opens, it indicates that the policy issue will elevate into a policy agenda and sequent policy-making steps will materialized.

Policy-making Theory IV: Discourse Perspective In discursive perspective, policy making is construed as

language game of persuasion and argumentation. Hence, policy-making studies are analyses of how different parties concerned frame, organize and possibly win the argumentation in a policy discourse.

• Formal argument model in policy analysis– Constituents in formal argument model (William Dunn)

• Claim• Information• Warrant• Backing• Qualifier• Rebuttal

The Logical Structure of Policy Argument

Claim affirms thatthe policy

conclusion is true

Policy-relevantInformation is the

beginning of a policy argument

CI

W

Warrant justifiesthe movement

from I to C

since

therefore

C becomes I in a sequent

argument


MTI for allin compulsory

education

Mother tongueInstruction (MTI)enhance learning

effectiveness

CI

W

Findings of International Studies

in Educational Achievement (IEA) for Science

since

therefore


argument


Rebuttal indicatesthat special conditions,

exceptions, or qualifications to W, or I reduce theplausibility of C

Backing justifies W

Claim affirms thatthe policy

conclusion is true as qualified

Policy-relevantInformation is the

beginning of a policy argument

CQI

Qualifier indicatesthat the claim hasa given plausibility

W

Warrant justifiesthe movement

from I to C

R

B

since

therefore

because

unless


argument


Not in EnglishNot at more advanced

levels

Backing justifies W


education

MTI enhance learning

effectiveness

CQI

On what subjects?At what levels?

W

Findings of IEA

for Science

R

B

since

therefore

because

unless


argument


Not in most of post-colonial

states

Backing justifies W


education

MTI enhance learning

effectiveness

CQI

Most of independentStates adopt

MTI

W

UNESCO1953 Document

R

B

since

therefore

because

unless


argument

Policy Argumentation: Interpretive Approach• Formal argument model in policy analysis

– Constituents in formal argument model (William Dunn)• Claim• Information• Warrant• Backing• Qualifier• Rebuttal

– Types of argumentative claims• Designative claims on facts• Evaluative claims on values• Advocative claims on actions

Policy Argumentation: Interpretive Approach• Interpretive approach to policy argument

– Deep description of arguments of different interpretive communities

– Constituents of the architecture of argumentation and the textuality of argumentative/persuasive texts

• Genre• Frame• Rhetoric• Narrative

The Conception of Genre in Critical Discourse Analysis • Concept of genre – “A genre is a group of texts that share specific discursive

features.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.163).– Genre means “distinctions within convention …between text

types.” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 13) More specifically, Fairclough defines “genre as socially ratified way of using language in connection with a particular type of social activities,” (Fairclough, 1997, p. 14) e.g. interview, narrative, exposition, argumentation, persuasion.

– Accordingly policy text and/or discourse can mainly be construed as argumentative and/or persuasive genre of text and/or discourse.

The Conception of Genre in Critical Discourse Analysis • Concept of genre – According to Richard Edwards and his associates persuasive

text may take the following forms• Deliberative genre: It refers to policy discourse which is

“associate with policy and its future orientated and speculative.” (Edwards et al., 2004, p.19) For example, in documents relating to recent education reform, they commonly refer to the future of global-informational economy and network society and how education reform should prepare students to fit into new species of flexible and workers and/or networkers.

• Forensic genre: It refers to policy discourse which “focuses on past events and attempt to provide an account that is taken to be true.” (ibid) For example, the rhetoric of presenting data of declining standards in comparative educational research and statistics of falling competitiveness of national economy in global market can be construed as a kind of forensic genre.

The Conception of Genre in Critical Discourse Analysis • Concept of genre – According to Richard Edwards and his associates persuasive

text may take the following forms• Epideictic genre: It refers to policy discourse which focuses on

the contemporary. However, in epideictic genre one can usually find “the notion of ‘naming and shaming’, publicly denouncing organizations and individuals who fail to meet the quality standards and inspection criteria to which they are subject.” (ibid) For example, blaming on teachers, naming negative value-added schools, and shaming failing schools.

Conception of Frame in Policy Studies• Law and Rein define frame “as a way of representing

knowledge, and as the reliance on (and development of) interpretative schemas that bound and order a chaotic situation, facilitate interpretation and provide a guide for doing and acting.” (Law and Rein, 2003, p.173)

Conception of Frame in Policy Studies• The concept of frame finds its scholarly resonance in

the well-documented concept of “definition of situation” in symbolic interactionism. As Law and Rein quote in length of Goffman’s exposition

“I assume that when individuals attend to any current situation, they face the question: ‘What is going on here?’ Whether asked explicitly, as in times of confusion and doubt, or tacitly, during occasions of usual certitude, the question is put and the answer to it is presumed by the way the individual then proceeds to get on with the affairs at hand.” (Quoted in Law & Rein, p. 175)

Conception of Frame in Policy Studies• The functions of frames in policy argumentation are to

(Law & Rein, p. 174)– “note a special type of story that focuses attention”

– “provide stability and structure by narrating a problem-centred discourse as evolves over time,”

– “define the boundary between evidence and noise”,

– “wed fact and value into belief about how to act”

Conception of Frame in Policy Studies• Types of policy frame

– Rhetoric frame

– Action frame• Policy action frame: It refers to “the frame an institutional

actor uses to construct the problem of a specific policy situation.”

• Institutional action frame: It indicates the frame held by institutions. This signifies that as agents of thought and action, institutions possess characteristics point of view, prevailing system of beliefs, category scheme, images, routines and styles of argument and action, all of which inform their action frames.” (Schon & Rein, 1994, p.33)

Conception of Frame in Policy Studies• Framing HKSAR education reform

– Lifelong learning for employability and competitiveness– Lifelong learning for social inclusion and political empowerment

• Framing Quality Education– Quality for analytic-technical control– Quality for communal understanding of trust and care– Quality for potential emancipation

• Framing MOI policy– MOI policy as issue of learning effectiveness– MOI policy as issue of nation-building– MOI policy as issue of social capital formation– MOI policy as issue of human right

Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies• Meanings of rhetoric: Rhetoric has a long history in

Western literary as well as philosophical traditions. It can be traced back to Aristotle.

– Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the ability to see, in any given case, the available means of persuasion.” (Aristotle, 1991, quoted in Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p. 155)

– Wharley defines it as “the findings of suitable arguments to prove a given point, and the skillful arrangement of them.” (Whately, 1963, quoted in Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p. 155)

Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies• Meanings of rhetoric: – A dictionary definition of rhetoric is that it is “the art of using

language so as to persuade or influence others.” (Edwards et al. 2004, p.3) Hence, Rhetorical analysis involves the study of the ways in which we attempt to persuade or influence in our discursive, textual and gestural practices. (Edwards et al., 2004, p.13) Hence, “part of the job of the rhetoric analyst is to determine how constructions of ‘the real’ are made persuasive” (Simon, 1990; quoted in Edwards et al., 2004, p. 13) “Here the question is not so much about whether reality matches rhetoric or not, but which fabrications of the real are more persuasive and why.” (Edwards, et al., 2004, p.13)

– As for the case of educational discourse, rhetoric analysis aims to explore and reveal “hidden rhetoric aspect to educational discourse.” (Edwards et al., 2004, p. 9)

Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies• Constituents of rhetoric performance: It has been identified by analysts of rhetoric that there are several essential constituents for a rhetoric performance, i.e. to make rhetoric persuasive. They are

– Context: Rhetoric by definition is pragmatic in nature, i.e. it “responds to or interacts with societal issues or problems, and it produces some action upon or change in the world.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.161). Therefore, in order to be comprehended and/or critically analyzed the rhetoric in a policy text, it must be set against the context (temporal, socio-cultural and/or pragmatic contexts), in which it is derived.

Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies• Constituents of rhetoric performance:

– Exigence: It refers to the way the issue and/or problem to be addressed in the rhetoric of a policy text are defined and formulated. For example, in recent education reforms, the most commonly used exigencies are either the decline of standards of students and school leavers or the threat of losing national competitiveness in global economic competitions.

Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies• Constituents of rhetoric performance: – Audience: It signifies the actual or figurative audience, whom

the rhetoric of a policy text suppose to address or appeal to. For example, in recent education-reform documents, the audiences to be addressed are usually employers and/or parents rather than teachers and education professions. It indicates a sense of distrustfulness to professionals, who usually been depicted as the sourced of falling standard in education and/or falling competitiveness in national economy. Even within the audience of parents, they has been defined as consumers striving for individual gains rather than as citizens constituting common will and good for the society as a whole.

Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies• Constituents of rhetoric performance: – Rhetor credibility: It indicates the authorities of the speakers

or writers of the texts, and/or the authorities that the rhetoric of a policy documents try to appealed to. For example, appeal to concepts as well as authorities of neo-liberal economists, such as Milton Friedman, in policy texts of education reform of liberalization is one of the most common practices in recent education reforms.

– Absence: It has been underlined that one of the essential components in analyzing rhetoric is “what is absent from or silenced by the text.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.169).

Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies• Constituents of rhetoric performance: – Metaphor: “The essence of metaphor is understanding and

experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; quoted in Edwards, 2004, p.25) In metaphoric analysis, it is claimed that “human understanding is a metaphoric process; the mind grasps an unfamiliar idea only by comparison to or in terms of something already known. Thus the metaphoric language in a text presents a particular view of reality by structuring the understanding of one idea in terms of something previously understood.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.173)

– For example, in the rhetoric of the neo-liberalism the education system is metaphorically prescribed as a market mechanism, a school as a input-output factory, students as materials to be processed and added on value, parents as choosing consumers, school principals as CEO, etc.

Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies• Constituents of rhetoric performance: – Iconicity: “Iconicity functions in a way that is similar to

metaphor, iconicity ‘rests on the intuitive recognition of similarities one field of reference (the form of language) and another.’” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.174) For example, HK school like to use celebrity graduates as rhetoric to indicate the quality of the school.

Conception of Narrative in Policy Studies

• Conception of narrative in policy study– Narrative can be defined as literal representation

which takes the form of a storyline, i.e. with clear beginning, development, and end.

– It refers to the ‘storyline’ that each interpretive community constructs, follows and put fore in a policy argumentation. It is a representation schema a interpretive community used to define their situation in the policy reality and organize their arguments.


• The structure of narrative: Numbers of scholars have tried to summarize the structure of a narrative. Here Hyden White’s formulation will be adopted

– Central subject: The narrator or the main character in the story. In the case of policy argumentation, the central subject is a particular interpretive community/interest group.

– Plot: • It refers to the sequence of events selectively organized into a narrative

by an interpretive community in the policy argumentation.• It represents “a structure of relationships by which the events contained

in the account are endowed with a meaning by being identified as parts of an integrated whole” (P.9)

• “The plot of a narrative imposes a meaning on the events that make up its story level by revealing at the end a structure that was immanent in the events all along.” (p.20)


• The structure of narrative:– Closure:

• It refers to the resolution, evaluation and even moral meaning elicited from the precedent sequence of events, i.e. plots.

• As White indicates “a proper historical narrative … achieves narrative fullness by explicitly invoking the idea of a social system to serve as a fixed reference point by which the flow of ephemeral events can be endowed with specifically moral meaning. … (Hence), the chronicle must approach the form of an allegory, moral or analogical as the case may be, in order to achieve both narrativity and historicality.” (p. 22)

• As in the case of policy narrative, the closure performs the function of resolving the policy alternatives and/or conflicts, evaluating the policy choices, and attributing moral meanings to the policy conclusion. But most importantly these resolution, evaluation and attribution are all constructed according to the worldview and/or vested interest of the interpretive community concerned.


• The structure of narrative:– Authority: Narratives will usually be present in

authoritative manner as if they are the establishment of facts, order and even truth


• Narrative identity and decision-making by rule following

By relating James March’s institutionist thesis of decision-making by rule following with the interpretive approach to narrative identity of interpretive communities


• Narrative identity and decision-making by rule following

– The conception of interpretive community can be construed as a community with a particular narrative identity on a policy issue

– As a result members of an interpretive community will follow the logic of appropriateness in making decision on policy issue

– Hence, they are most unlikely to approach the policy decision at hand in self-interest calculation orientation but to base the decision on the narrative identity of the interpretive community to which they have identified.



Critical-Discursive Perspective

Policy Making

Comprehensive Rational Model

Political Approach

New institutionalism

State Theory

Multi-Stream & Policy window Approach

Discourse Approach

Argumentation

Frame

Rhetoric

Narrative


END

7Policy Process Study: Policy-Making Study

Professorship of Forest Policy and Forest Resource Economics COST FP 1207 WG1 Working Group Meeting Prof. Dr. Norbert Weber Prague, November 13-14, 2013.

Documents

forest policy analysis

forest policy formulation

forestrelated policy

journal of forest policy

policy modelling

policy actors

policy science

policy modeling