تعداد نشریات | 161 |
تعداد شمارهها | 6,532 |
تعداد مقالات | 70,501 |
تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 124,115,723 |
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 97,219,997 |
بررسی ابعاد مختلف مشاوره ذینفعان در فرایندهای سیاستگذاری جمهوری اسلامی ایران | ||
سیاستگذاری عمومی | ||
دوره 10، شماره 1، 1403، صفحه 107-121 اصل مقاله (2.01 M) | ||
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jppolicy.2024.97850 | ||
نویسنده | ||
علی خواجه نائینی* | ||
استادیار سیاستگذاری عمومی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران | ||
چکیده | ||
نظامهای سیاسی مختلف با ارزشها و قرائت های چندگانه و با رویکردهای متنوعی که نسبت به بازتوزیع قدرت در میان افراد و گروه های جامعه دارند، معماری ویژهای را در نسبت به مشاوره سیاستی ذینفعان در فرایندهای سیاستگذاری به کار گرفته و مشارکت آنان را در فرایند ارتقاء داده یا محدود میکنند. درنتیجه ابعاد مشاوره ذینفعان در فرایند سیاستگذاری شکل گرفته و پویاییهای آن میتواند متفاوت باشد. این پژوهش با تأکید بر اینکه مشارکت نهادینه ذینفعان در فرایند سیاستگذاری عمومی یکی از مهمترین اشکال نظاممند تقویت نظام های مشاوره سیاستی است درصدد است که به بررسی ابعاد مختلف مشاوره سیاستی ذینفعان در فرایند سیاستگذاری کلان جمهوری اسلامی ایران در سطح 2 شورای عالی سیاستگذار (شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی و شورای عالی فضای مجازی) بپردازد. بدین منظور با استفاده از رویکرد قیاسی و تعیین ابعاد 5 گانه مشاوره سیاستی ذینفعان، آییننامهها، شیوه نامهها و اسناد سیاستی شوراهای مذکور مورد بررسی قرار میگیرد. نتایج نشان میدهد ظرفیت استفاده از مشاوره ذینفعان در هریک از مراحل دستورکار، طراحی، اجرا و ارزیابی سیاست در هریک از 2 شورا متفاوت بوده و مرحله ارزیابی از کمترین میزان مشاوره ذینفعان برخوردار است. همچنین سازوکارها و چگونگی انتخاب ذینفعان برای شرکت در فرایند سیاستگذاری و نوع مداخله آنها نیز متفاوت است. | ||
کلیدواژهها | ||
ذینفعان؛ مشاوره سیاستی؛ فرایند سیاستگذاری؛ شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی؛ شورای عالی فضای مجازی؛ ایران | ||
عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
Investigating Policy Consultation of Stakeholders in Policy Process of the Islamic Republic of Iran | ||
نویسندگان [English] | ||
Ali Khajehnaieni | ||
Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran | ||
چکیده [English] | ||
Emphasizing that the institutional participation of stakeholders in the policy process is one of the most important systematic forms of strengthening policy consultation systems, this research aims to examine the status of this matter in the policy process of the Islamic Republic of Iran at different policy levels. In fact, the question of the current research is that to what extent and how the different levels of policy making in Iran have provided the capacities of the institutional presence of stakeholders (as one of the most important tools to promote the policy consultation system) in the policy processes? For this purpose, policy levels including macro policies are selected. by using the comparative approach and determining the 5 dimensions of policy consultation of the stakeholders, the regulations, guidelines and policy documents of the said councils are examined. The results show that the capacity of using stakeholder consultation in each of the stages of agenda, design, implementation and policy evaluation is different in each of the two councils, and the evaluation stage has the lowest amount of stakeholder consultation. Also, the mechanisms and how to choose the beneficiaries to participate in the policy making process and the type of their intervention are also different. | ||
کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
Policy Consultation, Stakeholders, Policy Process, Islamic Republic of Iran | ||
مراجع | ||
Alemanno A. 2015. Stakeholder engagement in regulatory policy. Brussels: OECD Publishing
Anderson.james, 2014. Public Policymaking. Cengage Learning
Bakir,Caner. 2023. The vicious circle of policy advisory systems and knowledge regimes in consolidated authoritarian regimes. Policy and Society, 2023, 42(3), 419–439
Baldwin, Elizabeth. 2019. Exploring How Institutional Arrangements Shape Stakeholder Influence on Policy Decisions: A Comparative Analysis in the Energy Sector. Public dministration Review, 79(2). 246-255
Barbrook-Johnson, P., Castellani, B., Hills, D., Penn, A., & Gilbert, N. (2021). Policy evaluation for a complex world: Practical methods and reflections from the UK Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity across the Nexus. Evaluation, 27(1), 4-17
Bonafont, L. C., L.M. Marquez. (2011). Mobilization of Interest Group in the Espanish Parliament. General Conference of the ECPR Iceland
Boswell, C. 2009. The political uses of expert knowledge. Immigration policy and social research. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh
Bovens M .2007. Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. European Law Journal 13(4): 447–468
Brans, M., & Vancoppenolle, D. 2005. Policy-making reforms and civil service: An exploration of agendas and consequences. In M. Painter & J. Pierre (Eds.), Challenges to state policy capacity: Global trends and comparative perspectives (pp. 164–184). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Bridgman P, Davis G. 2004. The Australian Policy Handbook. 3rd ed. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin
Bulmer, M. 1993. The Royal Commission and Departmental Committee in the British policy-making process. In G. Peters & A. Barker (Eds.), Advising west European governments, inquiries, expertise and public policy (pp. 37–49). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press
Cammaerts, Bart.2011. Power Dynamics in Multi-stakeholder Policy Processes and Intra-civil Society Networking. In The Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy. Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Cawson, A. 1982. Corporatism and welfare: Social policy and state intervention in Britain. London: Heinemann
Challies, Edward, Elisa Kochskämper, Jens Newig, and W. Jager, Nicolas. 2017. Governance change and governance learning in Europe:n stakeholder participation in environmental policy implementation. Policy and Society, Vol. 36, no. 2, 288–303
Cochran, Clarke E., Mayer, Carr, Lawrence C., T.R., Cayer, N. Joseph, McKenzie, Mark, Peck, Laura. 2016. American Public Policy: An Introduction. cengage
Community Toolbox, 2020, Communications that promote interest and encourage involvement. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/promoting-interest-and-participation-initiatives
Court J, Mendizabal E, Osborne D, Young J. 2006. Policy engagement: how civil society can be more effective. London: Overseas Development Institute
Craft, J., & Daku, M. 2016. A Comparative assessment of elite policy recruits in canada. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis
Craft, Jonathan and Halligan, John. 2016. Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience. Policy Sci (2017) 50:47–62
Craft, Jonathan and Halligan, John. 2020. Policy Advisory Systems An Introduction in »Advising
Dunn, William N. 2017. Public Policymaking 8th Edition. Cengage Learning
Governments in the Westminster Tradition«. Cambridge University Press
Ellen Fobé, Marleen Brans, Diederik Vancoppenolle, Jan Van Damme,2013, Institutionalized advisory systems: An analysis of member satisfaction of advice production and use across 9 strategic advisory councils in Flanders (Belgium), Policy and Society, Volume 32, Issue 3, 225–۲۴۰
Fobé, Ellen, Brans, Marleen, Vancoppenolle, Diederik & Damme, Jan Van. 2013. institutionalized advisory systems: An analysis of member satisfaction of advice production and use across 9 strategic advisory councils in Flanders (Belgium), Policy and Society, 32:3, 225-240
Government of South Australia. 2023. PlanSA. Tool – Types of engagement – open house events. Plan.sa.gov.au
Halligan, J. 1995. Policy advice and the public service. In G. Peters & D. Savoie (Eds.), Governance in a changing environment. Quebec: Canadian Centre for Management Development
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739
Helbig N, Dawes S, Dzhusupova Z, Klievink B, Mkude C. 2015. Stakeholder engagement in policy development: Observations and lessons from international experience. In: Janssen M, Deljoo A, editors. Policy practice and digital science public administration and information technology. Cham: Springer; 177–204
Howlett, M. 2008. Enhanced policy analytical capacity as a prerequisite for effective evidence-based policy-making: Theory, concepts and lessons from the Canadian case. Paper prepared at the International Research Symposium on Public Management XII
Howlett, M., Tan, S. L., Migone, A., Wellstead, A., & Evans, B. 2014. The distribution of analytical techniques in policy advisory systems: Policy formulation and the tools of policy appraisal. Public Policy and Administration, 29(4), 271-291
Howlett, Michael (2019) Comparing policy advisory systems beyond the OECD: models, dynamics and the second-generation research agenda, Policy Studies, 40:3-4, 241-259
International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) IAP2’s Public Participation Toolbox. 2014];http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/imported/06Dec_Toolbox.pdf
Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L.A., Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J., 2010. Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for regional forest programmes in Finland. For. Policy Econ. 12 (3), 213–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.
King, Andrew, 2007. Cooperation between corporations and environmental groups: a transaction cost perspective. Academy of Management Review.Vol. 32, No. 3, 889–900.
Koontz, T. 2005. We finished the plan, so now what? Impacts of collaborative stakeholder participation on land use policy. Policy Studies Journal, 33(3), 459–481
Lemke, Amy A., and Harris-Wai, Julie N., 2015. Stakeholder engagement in policy development: challenges and opportunities for human genomics. Genet Med, 17(2), 949–957
MCPFE, 2002. Public participation in forestry in Europe and North America. Synopsis of the FAO/ECE/ILO joint committee team of specialists on participation in forestry. http://www.foresteurope.org/documentos/public_participation_in_forestry.pdf
Otjes, S. (2019). No politics in the agenda-setting meeting’: plenary agenda setting in the Netherlands. West european politics, vol. 42, no. 4, 728-745
Peters, G., & Barker, A. 1993. Introduction. Governments, information, advice and policy-making. In G. Peters & A. Barker (Eds.), Advising West European Governments, inquiries, expertise and public policy (pp. 1–19). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press
Vining AR and Weimer DL .2010. Public Administration Review. Foundations of Public Administration: Policy Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Foundations of Public Administration
Weiss, C. H. 1986. Research and policy-making: A limited partnership. In F. Heller (Ed.), The use and abuse of social science (pp. 214–235). London: Sage
World Health Organization. 2010. A framework for national health policies, strategies and plans. Geneva: World Health Organization | ||
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 220 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 170 |