IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v51y2008i6p759-775.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints

Author

Listed:
  • John Turnpenny
  • Måns Nilsson
  • Duncan Russel
  • Andrew Jordan
  • Julia Hertin
  • Bjorn Nykvist

Abstract

Widely advocated as a means to make policy making more integrated, policy assessment remains weakly integrated in practice. But explanations for this shortfall, such as lack of staff training and resources, ignore more fundamental institutional factors. This paper identifies institutional capacities supporting and constraining attempts to make policy assessment more integrated. A comparative empirical analysis of functionally equivalent assessment systems in four European jurisdictions finds that there are wide-ranging institutional constraints upon integration. These include international policy commitments, the perception that assessment should support rather than determine policy, organisational traditions, and the sectorisation of policy making. This paper concludes by exploring the potential for altering these institutions to make policy assessment more integrated.

Suggested Citation

  • John Turnpenny & Måns Nilsson & Duncan Russel & Andrew Jordan & Julia Hertin & Bjorn Nykvist, 2008. "Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 759-775.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:51:y:2008:i:6:p:759-775
    DOI: 10.1080/09640560802423541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560802423541
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640560802423541?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ryan Wong & Jeroen van der Heijden, 2022. "How does symbolic commitment strengthen the resilience of sustainability institutions? Exploring the role of bureaucrats in Germany, Finland, and the UK," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 10-22, February.
    2. Saarikoski, Heli & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Antunes, Paula & Aszalós, Réka & Baró, Francesc & Berry, Pam & Blanko, Gemma Garcia & Goméz-Baggethun, Erik & Carvalho, Laurence & Dick, Jan , 2018. "Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 579-598.
    3. Eryn Rigley & Caitlin Bentley & Joshua Krook & Sarvapali D. Ramchurn, 2024. "Evaluating international AI skills policy: A systematic review of AI skills policy in seven countries," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 15(1), pages 204-217, February.
    4. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    5. Royston, Sarah & Selby, Jan & Shove, Elizabeth, 2018. "Invisible energy policies: A new agenda for energy demand reduction," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 127-135.
    6. Jussila Hammes , Johanna, 2017. "The impact of career concerns and cognitive dissonance on bureaucrats’ use of cost-benefit analysis," Working papers in Transport Economics 2017:5, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    7. Christof Rissi & Fritz Sager, 2013. "Types of knowledge utilization of regulatory impact assessments: Evidence from Swiss policymaking," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 348-364, September.
    8. Duncan Russel & Sergio Castellari & Alessio Capriolo & Suraje Dessai & Mikael Hildén & Anne Jensen & Eleni Karali & Kirsi Mäkinen & Helle Ørsted Nielsen & Sabine Weiland & Roos den Uyl & Jenny Tröltzs, 2020. "Policy Coordination for National Climate Change Adaptation in Europe: All Process, but Little Power," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Zimmermann, Michel & Pye, Steve, 2018. "Inequality in energy and climate policies: Assessing distributional impact consideration in UK policy appraisal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 594-601.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:51:y:2008:i:6:p:759-775. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.