Regional development has often been described in economic terms, using economic indicators such as growth in GDP or demographic indicators such as net migration or employment. Some researchers argued that regional development should be understood broader, by including for example social indicators and living environment indicators . Recently, researchers have shown that policies directed towards regional development have broadened as well , but are also still evaluated within specific narratives or frameworks that often constitute the goals of the policy, for example the Keynesian framework favours increasing demand and favours the evaluation of policies aimed at exactly this. This self-constituting practice of an amalgam of related policies has also been referred to by Hall as a policy paradigm. Because policies are often evaluated within these policy paradigms it becomes difficult to decontextualise them, disentangle them and compare policies with each other.In this paper we propose to use a different, more quantitative and comparative method. By applying the above mentioned work from Andy Pike on numerous data sources from EUROSTAT and OECD, researchers from the PREMIUM_EU project developed a new framework that is measuring Regional Development (dubbed “R”) using economic, social and living environment indicators.MethodBy regarding this “R” (and individual indicators) as an outcome of public policies on the local, regional, national and international level and by analysing regional development policies on different levels from 2010 and onwards we believe it is possible to understand the impact of these policies in a more evidenced based sense, regardless of the above mentioned different types of narratives or frameworks.We started our research with an analysis from the OECD on the different types of regional development policies and the relations between different levels of government within countries. Based on this and literature research, we developed a framework with relevant topics for regional development policies and different levels of government.Based on the work of Moritz Schütz presented during the ERSA 2024 conference, we developed and employed a webcrawler to automatically download and summarise policies from municipalities, regional and national authorities and analyse the results of this exercise.Findings/resultsThe webcrawling and -mining exercise in combination with the new set of indicators will offer a much broader and more comprehensive view of the use and necessity of regional development policies. The findings will be discussed in dedicated policy labs with policymakers and researchers from the respective regions.Discussion/conclusionsBoth the new set of indicators and the analysis of the policies are not only innovative, but will also be viewed as speculative. Although we believe that a direct causal relationship between policies and the regional development will be hard to uncover, we do believe that this research will move the field of policy analysis forward, because it is more focused on evidence-based indicators and is based on larger sets of policies.
DOCUMENT
The chapter analyses knowledge management paradigms for the understanding and prioritisation of risks (risk assessment), leading to decision- making amongst policy makers. Studies and approaches on knowledge-based risk assessment, and in general risk management, vary depending on perceptions of risk, and these perceptions affect the knowledge scope and, ultimately, affect decisions on policy. Departing from the problems of big data in aviation, the shortcomings of the existing knowledge management paradigms and the problems of data conversion to knowledge in aviation risk management approaches are discussed. The chapter argues that there is a need for transciplinarity and interdisciplinarity for greater understanding of context, deriving from the challenges in the big data era and in aviation policy making. In order to address the challenging dynamic context in aviation, the chapter proposes a strength/knowledge-based inquiry that involves public sector and high-power organisations, in order to gain holistic knowledge and to aid the decision analysis of policy makers.
DOCUMENT
In my view, organisations are playing an ever-larger role with and in these changes. This is why we need organisations that are not afraid to express and give concrete meaning to their innovative views on economic and social themes. These are organisations that dare to break out of the old thought and behavioural patterns in order to create room for change and renewal. They are guided by an innovative philosophy and mode of thinking, and show this leadership by translating this body of thought into concrete actions and results. This is why, in the professorship, we call these organisations ‘thought leaders in a society of change’.
DOCUMENT
In January 2017, relations between Greece and Turkey were under severe strain when warships from both sides engaged in a brief standoff near a pair of uninhabited Greek ‘islets’ in the Aegean, whose sovereignty is disputed by Turkey. Theoretically informed by the literature of foreign policy analysis, we examine how the Greek diplomats, military officers and political analysts interpreted Turkey’s behaviour at that particular time. The article considers the following research question: which factors, from a Greek point of view, explain Turkey’s foreign policy in the Aegean in January 2017? Our theoretical expectation is that, in the aftermath of the coup attempt in Turkey, Greek diplomats, military officers and political analysts would ascribe domestic calculations into Turkey’s activities. We employed Q- methodology to uncover socially shared perspectives on this topic. Based on our findings, we uncovered two viewpoints: (1) Turkey’s diachronic strategy in the Aegean and (2) the strongman style. According to the former and most widely shared viewpoint, a consistent ‘rationalist’ strategy to change the status quo in the Aegean explains Turkey’s behaviour. According to the second one, the belief system of Turkey’s leadership legitimises the use of force in the conduct of foreign policy.
MULTIFILE
This article addresses European energy policy through conventional and transformative sustainability approaches. The reader is guided towards an understanding of different renewable energy options that are available on the policy making table and how the policy choices have been shaped. In arguing that so far, European energy policy has been guided by conventional sustainability framework that focuses on eco-efficiency and ‘energy mix’, this article proposes greater reliance on circular economy (CE) and Cradle to Cradle (C2C) frameworks. Exploring the current European reliance on biofuels as a source of renewable energy, this article will provide recommendations for transition to transformative energy choices. http://dx.doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/2331 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
DOCUMENT
Current research on data in policy has primarily focused on street-level bureaucrats, neglecting the changes in the work of policy advisors. This research fills this gap by presenting an explorative theoretical understanding of the integration of data, local knowledge and professional expertise in the work of policy advisors. The theoretical perspective we develop builds upon Vickers’s (1995, The Art of Judgment: A Study of Policy Making, Centenary Edition, SAGE) judgments in policymaking. Empirically, we present a case study of a Dutch law enforcement network for preventing and reducing organized crime. Based on interviews, observations, and documents collected in a 13-month ethnographic fieldwork period, we study how policy advisors within this network make their judgments. In contrast with the idea of data as a rationalizing force, our study reveals that how data sources are selected and analyzed for judgments is very much shaped by the existing local and expert knowledge of policy advisors. The weight given to data is highly situational: we found that policy advisors welcome data in scoping the policy issue, but for judgments more closely connected to actual policy interventions, data are given limited value.
LINK
The ‘Grand Challenges’ of our times, like climate change, resource depletion, global inequity, and the destruction of wildlife and biodiversity can only be addressed by innovating cities. Despite the options of tele-working, tele-trading and tele-amusing, that allow people to participate in ever more activities, wherever they are, people are resettling in cities at an unprecedented speed. The forecasted ‘rurification’ of society did not occur. Technological development has drained rural society from its main source of income, agriculture, as only a marginal fraction of the labour force is employed in agriculture in the rich parts of the world. Moreover, technological innovation created new jobs in the IT and service sectors in cities. Cities are potentially far more resource efficient than rural areas. In a city transport distances are shorter, infrastructures can be applied to provide for essential services in a more efficient way and symbiosis might be developed between various infrastructures. However, in practice, urban infrastructures are not more efficient than rural infrastructures. This paper explores the reasons why. It digs into the reasons why the symbiotic options that are available in cities are not (sufficiently) utilised. The main reason for this is not of an economic nature: Infrastructure organisations are run by experts who are part of a strong paradigmatic community. Dependence on other organisations is regarded as limiting the infrastructure organisation’s freedom of action to achieve its own goals. Expert cultures are transferred in education, professional associations, and institutional arrangements. By 3 concrete examples of urban systems, the paper will analyse how various paradigms of experts co-evolved with evolving systems. The paper reflects on recent studies that identified professional education as the initiation into such expert paradigms. It will thereby relate lack of urban innovation to the monodisciplinary education of experts and the strong institutionalised character of expertise. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_43 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karelmulder/
MULTIFILE
Biodiversity preservation is often viewed in utilitarian terms that render non-human species as ecosystem services or natural resources. The economic capture approach may be inadequate in addressing biodiversity loss because extinction of some species could conceivably come to pass without jeopardizing the survival of the humans. People might be materially sustained by a technological biora made to yield services and products required for human life. The failure to address biodiversity loss calls for an exploration of alternative paradigms. It is proposed that the failure to address biodiversity loss stems from the fact that ecocentric value holders are politically marginalized and underrepresented in the most powerful strata of society. While anthropocentric concerns with environment and private expressions of biophilia are acceptable in the wider society, the more pronounced publicly expressed deep ecology position is discouraged. “Radical environmentalists” are among the least understood of all contemporary opposition movements, not only in tactical terms, but also ethically. The article argues in favor of the inclusion of deep ecology perspective as an alternative to the current anthropocentric paradigm. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2012.742914 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
In 'Ecodemocracy in the Wild: If existing democracies were to operationalize ecocentrism and animal ethics in policy-making, what would rewilding look like?' Helen Kopnina, Simon Leadbeater, Paul Cryer, Anja Heister, and Tamara Lewis present a democratic approach to considering the interests of entities and the correlation of rights of nature within it. According to the authors , ecodemocracy's overarching potential is to establish the baseline principles that dethrone single species domination and elevate multiple living beings as stakeholders in all decision-making. They provide insights on how ecodemocracy could become manifest and what it takes to achieve mult-species justice. A unique contribution in this chapter is the notion of ecodemocracy in rewilding , exemplified bij the controversial Dutch rewilding experiment in Oostvaardersplassen. The authors discuss the complexities of decision-making in the interest of different species and the challenges that arise when implementing such politics.
MULTIFILE
