IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/zbw/hbsedi/423.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Muster der Politikberatung: Wirtschaftspolitische Beratung in Deutschland und den USA im Vergleich

Author

Listed:
  • Friedrichs, Gordon
  • Stasiak, Dorota
  • Thunert, Martin
  • Rauscher, Natalie
  • Thiele, Hanna

Abstract

"Die befragten Beratungsakteure sehen in beiden Staaten einen großen Bedarf an wissenschaftsgestützter Politikberatung. Sie verstehen sich dabei weniger als Sprachrohr eines bestimmten gesellschaftlichen Interesses oder einer klar identifizierbaren Ideologie, sondern als ein Konsortium, das an Wissenschaftsdiskursen teilnimmt und die dort entwickelten Ideen in politisch relevante und politisch nutzbare Konzepte und Vorschläge übersetzt. Eine auf die Arbeitswelt und die Arbeitnehmerperspektive bezogene Politikberatung lässt sich sowohl hinsichtlich ihrer kommunikativen Ausrichtung auf eine immer stärker ausdifferenzierte multimediale Öffentlichkeit als auch hinsichtlich der Bandbreite der konsultationsfähigen Beratungsquellen ausweiten und optimieren, was zu einer größeren Durchschlagskraft arbeitnehmerbezogener wirtschafts- und sozialpolitischer Beratung führen könnte."

Suggested Citation

  • Friedrichs, Gordon & Stasiak, Dorota & Thunert, Martin & Rauscher, Natalie & Thiele, Hanna, 2019. "Muster der Politikberatung: Wirtschaftspolitische Beratung in Deutschland und den USA im Vergleich," Study / edition der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, volume 127, number 423, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:hbsedi:423
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/197972/1/1666941824.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claus Schnabel, 2016. "Gewerkschaften auf dem Rückzug? Mythen, Fakten und Herausforderungen [Trade Unions in Full Retreat? Myths, Facts, and Challenges]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 96(6), pages 426-432, June.
    2. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    2. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    3. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    4. Aurélien Goutsmedt & Francesco Sergi & François Claveau & Clément Fontan, 2023. "The Different Paths of Central Bank Scientization: The Case of the Bank of England," Working Papers hal-04267004, HAL.
    5. Thomas V Maher & Charles Seguin & Yongjun Zhang & Andrew P Davis, 2020. "Social scientists’ testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
    7. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Johan Christensen, 2018. "Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 291-311, September.
    9. Ekayani, Meti & Nurrochmat, Dodik Ridho & Darusman, Dudung, 2016. "The role of scientists in forest fire media discourse and its potential influence for policy-agenda setting in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 22-29.
    10. Jaspers, Patricia & Houtepen, Rob & Horstman, Klasien, 2013. "Ethical review: Standardizing procedures and local shaping of ethical review practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 311-318.
    11. Yulia A. Krasheninnikova, 2019. "The Problems of Ensuring the Quality of Experts’ Work: the Case of Media Content Evaluation in the Russian Federation," Administrative Consulting, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. North-West Institute of Management., issue 3.
    12. Ellguth Peter & Kohaut Susanne, 2019. "A Note on the Decline of Collective Bargaining Coverage: The Role of Structural Change," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(1), pages 39-66, January.
    13. Thomas Koetz & Katharine Farrell & Peter Bridgewater, 2012. "Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Sokolovska, Nataliia & Fecher, Benedikt & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(4).
    15. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    16. Peter Tangney & Michael Howes, 2016. "The politics of evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of climate adaptation in Australia and the UK," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(6), pages 1115-1134, September.
    17. Goutsmedt, Aurélien & Sergi, Francesco, 2024. "Redefining Scientisation: Central Banks between Science and Politics," SocArXiv dxvfp, Center for Open Science.
    18. Marjolein B.. A. van Asselt & Ellen Vos, 2006. "The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 313-336, June.
    19. Caroline Hussler & Patrick Rondé, 2006. "Biais cognitifs et choix technologiques : une analyse des priorités des experts français," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(4), pages 65-77.
    20. Dik Roth & Michiel Köhne & Elisabet Dueholm Rasch & Madelinde Winnubst, 2021. "After the facts: Producing, using and contesting knowledge in two spatial-environmental conflicts in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(3), pages 626-645, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:hbsedi:423. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/boeckde.html .

    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.