This Bachelor thesis discusses the process of decision-making and the actors involved in the negotiations of the Channel Tunnel. The Channel Tunnel Fixed link is situated between France and the UK, the interconnected region forms the Transmanche region. The Channel Tunnel is an infrastructure that has not just brought and further integrated both sides of the Channel but has become an important asset for connecting the UK to the rest of Europe. In 2016 it was announced that the UK would leave the EU, the previous agreements surrounding the infrastructure of the Channel Tunnel fixed link needed to be renegotiated. This research uses the theoretical framework of Multi-Level Governance to analyse what are the decision-making process that took place during the negotiation of the Channel Tunnel fixed link. The research uses qualitative method, it focuses on the Qualitative Network Analysis to analyse the levels of governance the actors belong to. The research has determined that the decision-making process is both very structured and fixed, yet the UK influenced the outcome of the decision-making by demanding the withdrawal of the EU in the negotiations. Overall, the final policymaking process was the result of centralised decisions being taken at the level of the state in France and in the UK, which may create gaps in representing the interests of actors at the microlevel (locally or within the regions), and at the macrolevel (Other EU member states).

Alors que la société, notamment le grand public et les décideurs politiques, compte sur les experts pour lui fournir des connaissances scientifiques fiables, ceux-ci sont régulièrement en désaccord les uns avec les autres. Pourquoi, alors, faudrait-il leur faire confiance et se fier à leur jugement ? Pour y répondre, j’explore différentes causes des désaccords entre experts à travers le concept du pluralisme scientifique – le pluralisme explicatif et méthodologique, ainsi que la variété de normes épistémiques et non-épistémiques qui influencent la production de la connaissance scientifique – et les dynamiques sociales et politiques dans lesquelles le savoir expert est créé. J’argumente que les désaccords sont, dans le cadre de la recherche scientifique dite « académique », épistémiquement bénéfiques sur le long terme. Avec l’exemple du processus de l’élaboration des politiques publiques, j’explique ensuite comment l’utilisation du savoir scientifique à des fins pratiques crée des problèmes susceptibles d’exacerber les désaccords entre experts, mais que souvent, cela est dû en grande partie à des facteurs hors de leur contrôle. Enfin, j’argumente que cette utilisation particulière du savoir scientifique contribue à la méfiance du public envers les experts lorsqu’ils sont en désaccord, et je présente des conditions sous lesquelles il est justifié de leur faire confiance. / While society, notably the general public and policy makers, count on experts to provide it with reliable scientific knowledge, the latter regularly disagree with each other. Why, then, should we trust them and rely on their judgements? To answer, I explore different causes of disagreements between experts through the concept of scientific pluralism – explanatory and methodological pluralism, and the variety of epistemic and non-epistemic norms that influence the production of scientific knowledge – and the social and political dynamics in which expert knowledge is made. I argue that disagreements are, in the context of so-called “academic” scientific research, epistemically beneficial in the long term. With the example of the policy-making process, I then explain how the use of scientific knowledge for practical purposes creates problems that can exacerbate disagreements between experts, but that often, this is due in large part to factors beyond their control. Finally, I argue that this particular use of scientific knowledge contributes to public mistrust of experts when they disagree, and I present some conditions under which it is justified to trust them.

The examination of the role of the state in the broader context of socio-technical entanglement within data governance has received less attention due to the emergence of other powerful corporate actors (e.g. Big Tech). This thesis utilizes quantitative content analysis to investigate and compare how state agencies (the White House, FTC, Congress) and CNN framed data governance in 2022, focusing on the role of the state amid growing data privacy concerns following the Roe v. Wade overruling. The ultimate aim is to pinpoint the sociotechnical imaginaries that gain traction, having a constitutive effect on the US data governance order. Empirical results indicate that framings between the two units rather align than differ, particularly in the wake of the overruling. The evidence points to the active and multiple roles of the state and the coexistence of multiple sociotechnical imaginaries within asymmetric power dynamics, with the vision of ensuring consumer trust rising as prominent at the expense of viewing data privacy as a sovereign right of citizens. Despite the emerging perspective of viewing data privacy as a right, CNN, as a significant place of mediation, has amplified rather than challenged the market-based approach. Lastly, evidence indicates that media is not only a significant place for elevating certain sociotechnical imaginaries but could be considered one of the crucial places of initially discursively negotiated policymaking.

This dissertation attempts to explain why cross-national variation exists in government approaches to dealing with illegal drugs. As other scholars have shown, several domestic and international political factors do account for some of this variance. However less is known of the effect that bureaucratic dominance and political institutions may have on drug policy. This research argues that bureaucrats define problems in ways that make their services the best possible solution to policymakers. Mediating the ability of bureaucrats to influence drug policy outcomes are political institutions. Certain institutional structures foster a competitive policymaking environment while others foster a more cooperative policymaking environment. In the former of these, law enforcement approaches to the drug problem are often retained as the status quo because competition between policy actors prevents consideration of alternatives. In the latter environment however, prevention, treatment, and harm reduction approaches to the drug problem are developed because cooperation between policymakers allows other actors. namely public health bureaucrats.to influence drug policy decision making. To test this argument, I constructed an original dataset that includes over 4,000 observations of drug policy in 101 democracies. Institutional data on intergovernmental relations, regime type, political bargaining, electoral design, and cameralism were regressed on 6 different drug policy indices: law enforcement, deterrence-based prevention, abstinence-based treatment, educationbased prevention, substitution-based treatment, and harm reduction. While controlling for government resource capacity, severity of the drug problem, international pressure, and political ideology, I found that institutions explain a portion of the variance in drug policy outcomes. Providing in-depth information about these phenomena is a large amount of field data I collected while interviewing 155 politicians, bureaucrats, interest group leaders, and service providers. Respondents from all four of the case countries examined in this research.including United States, Canada, Austria, and Netherlands.report that bureaucrats play a major role in the formation of drug policy. Which bureaucrats have the most influence on policymakers is largely a function of domestic political conditions, international political factors, and political institutions.

Esta dissertação apresenta uma investigação sobre atores envolvidos na produção de políticas públicas para a primeira infância no Brasil. Nela buscou-se identificar e compreender suas ideias, suas formas de organização, articulação, negociação e tomada de decisão, explicando o predomínio da conciliação e do consenso entre eles. A pesquisa teve também o propósito de testar a viabilidade do uso da Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) para o estudo daqueles atores e seu subsistema de políticas, verificando as possibilidades e limitações dessa estrutura teórico-conceitual. Foi feito um estudo de caso sobre a comissão especial da Câmara dos Deputados que aprovou em 2014 o Projeto de Lei nº 6998\\2013, levando à criação do Marco Legal da Primeira Infância (MLPI), a Lei nº 13257 de 8\\3\\2016. Foram analisados os registros em texto e áudio das reuniões e audiências da comissão. A análise de argumentos e posições dos atores foi fundamentada na abordagem conceitual de Michael Freeden e na sua morfologia das famílias ideológicas, em associação com a caracterização das ideologias por Andrew Vincent. Foram identificados conceitos e princípios característicos de diversas famílias ideológicas, revelando-se bases para diferentes coalizões. As constatações da análise foram comparadas com dados fornecidos por atores em entrevistas semiestruturadas. Concluiu-se que houve um empenho comum das coalizões para a construção de um consenso prático que garantisse a aprovação do MLPI, pois esta beneficiaria a todos os atores. O teste de uso da ACF indicou que esta é uma abordagem apropriada para o estudo daquele subsistema de políticas, embora tenha apresentado duas limitações graves: não foi capaz de explicar a ação individual contraditória nem o apoio de todas as coalizões à criação do MLPI. Nesses dois pontos, foi necessário recorrer à abordagem de James March sobre as lógicas da adequação e da consequência. Sendo, tal como a ACF, uma abordagem ideacional, esse sistema de lógicas de ação mostrou-se um complemento viável e eficiente. / This dissertation presents an investigation on individuals and groups devoted to design public policies for early childhood in Brazil. It sought to understand their ideas, the ways they coordinate and compete, their decision-making process, as well as to explain the dominance of consensus among them. This work also aimed to test the feasibility of using Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as theoretical background for the research on those actors and their policy subsystem. A case study was made of the special committee in the Câmara dos Deputados where representatives passed in 2014 the Bill nº 6998\\2013, leading to the creation of a national legal framework for early childhood (MLPI), by Law nº 13257 of 3\\8th\\2016. Records (text and audio) of meetings and hearings held by the commitee were analyzed. The analysis of arguments and positions expressed by actors was based on Michael Freedens conceptual approach of ideologies and his morphology of ideological families, in association with Andrew Vincents characterization of ideologies. Concepts and principles related to various ideologies were identified, pointing out conditions for different coalitions to be formed. The findings of analysis were compared with information provided by actors in semi-structured interviews. It was concluded that there was a common commitment of coalitions to build a practical consensus that would assure the approval of MLPI, as this would benefit all stakeholders. The feasibility test of ACF suggested that this is a suitable approach to the research on that policy subsystem, although it has presented two serious limitations: it was not able to explain the contradictory individual action nor the commitment of all coalitions to the creation of MLPI. To deal with these topics, it was necessary to resort to James Marchs approach on the logics of appopriateness and consequences. Being as much an ideational approach as the ACF, this logic of action system proved to be a viable and efficient complement.

Learning from traumatic events: a comparative case study of governmental close protection policies in the aftermath of the murder of Olof Palme and Anna LindhViolent and threatful crimes against politicians are as despicable as any other crime acts against citizen. However, if politicians are targeted solely due to their position – the act can seriously damage the state and central government. This paper compares reports of government commissions and investigations which were initiated after the murder of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme in 1986 and secretary of state Anna Lindh in 2003. The purpose is to analyse and compare the conclusions and distinguish the main arguments that led to those conclusions and decipher similarities and differences through the lens of Tom Christensen’s instrumental perspective as well as Peter May’s social policy learning theory. The methodological approach of a qualitative method for this study fosters a deeper understanding of the ideological stances. Furthermore, the qualitative approach of conducting interviews with officials in various government positions has allowed for a more nuanced and thoughtful analysis. Together with the commissions and report, the interviews provide a holistic perspective of the two timeframes. The research question has been posed as follows: When comparing government commissions regarding the close protection of the central government, which essential similarities and differences can be distinguished? The result suggests that, an ideological change regarding main threats against the central government has taken place. The main policy discussions in the aftermath of the murder of prime minister Olof Palme was terrorism and if it could have been prevented at the time being. One major policy change was the build-up of the Swedish counter-terrorist unit. The main policy discussions in the aftermath of the murder of Anna Lindh was the issue of citizens with severe mental illnesses and how to detect those that pose serious threats to the central government at an earlier stage. Furthermore, given the conclusions of the commissions and reports, it is possible to determine that ”social policy learning” has occurred as according to Peter May’s theory. However, the study also notes an crucial exception; government officials in need of close protection can henceforth conform the structure of it and determine whether they want it or not.

Esta dissertação apresenta uma investigação sobre atores envolvidos na produção de políticas públicas para a primeira infância no Brasil. Nela buscou-se identificar e compreender suas ideias, suas formas de organização, articulação, negociação e tomada de decisão, explicando o predomínio da conciliação e do consenso entre eles. A pesquisa teve também o propósito de testar a viabilidade do uso da Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) para o estudo daqueles atores e seu subsistema de políticas, verificando as possibilidades e limitações dessa estrutura teórico-conceitual. Foi feito um estudo de caso sobre a comissão especial da Câmara dos Deputados que aprovou em 2014 o Projeto de Lei nº 6998\\2013, levando à criação do Marco Legal da Primeira Infância (MLPI), a Lei nº 13257 de 8\\3\\2016. Foram analisados os registros em texto e áudio das reuniões e audiências da comissão. A análise de argumentos e posições dos atores foi fundamentada na abordagem conceitual de Michael Freeden e na sua morfologia das famílias ideológicas, em associação com a caracterização das ideologias por Andrew Vincent. Foram identificados conceitos e princípios característicos de diversas famílias ideológicas, revelando-se bases para diferentes coalizões. As constatações da análise foram comparadas com dados fornecidos por atores em entrevistas semiestruturadas. Concluiu-se que houve um empenho comum das coalizões para a construção de um consenso prático que garantisse a aprovação do MLPI, pois esta beneficiaria a todos os atores. O teste de uso da ACF indicou que esta é uma abordagem apropriada para o estudo daquele subsistema de políticas, embora tenha apresentado duas limitações graves: não foi capaz de explicar a ação individual contraditória nem o apoio de todas as coalizões à criação do MLPI. Nesses dois pontos, foi necessário recorrer à abordagem de James March sobre as lógicas da adequação e da consequência. Sendo, tal como a ACF, uma abordagem ideacional, esse sistema de lógicas de ação mostrou-se um complemento viável e eficiente. / This dissertation presents an investigation on individuals and groups devoted to design public policies for early childhood in Brazil. It sought to understand their ideas, the ways they coordinate and compete, their decision-making process, as well as to explain the dominance of consensus among them. This work also aimed to test the feasibility of using Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) as theoretical background for the research on those actors and their policy subsystem. A case study was made of the special committee in the Câmara dos Deputados where representatives passed in 2014 the Bill nº 6998\\2013, leading to the creation of a national legal framework for early childhood (MLPI), by Law nº 13257 of 3\\8th\\2016. Records (text and audio) of meetings and hearings held by the commitee were analyzed. The analysis of arguments and positions expressed by actors was based on Michael Freedens conceptual approach of ideologies and his morphology of ideological families, in association with Andrew Vincents characterization of ideologies. Concepts and principles related to various ideologies were identified, pointing out conditions for different coalitions to be formed. The findings of analysis were compared with information provided by actors in semi-structured interviews. It was concluded that there was a common commitment of coalitions to build a practical consensus that would assure the approval of MLPI, as this would benefit all stakeholders. The feasibility test of ACF suggested that this is a suitable approach to the research on that policy subsystem, although it has presented two serious limitations: it was not able to explain the contradictory individual action nor the commitment of all coalitions to the creation of MLPI. To deal with these topics, it was necessary to resort to James Marchs approach on the logics of appopriateness and consequences. Being as much an ideational approach as the ACF, this logic of action system proved to be a viable and efficient complement.

This article analyzes the technocracy emergence in social sector, through the study of the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion case, created in 2011 in response to one of the essential themes of Ollanta Humala’s electoral campaign: social inclusion. This paper aims to determine which factors led to the establishment of a technocracy linked to social policy in a country where it has been traditionally linked to political usage and patronage. There are three factors that explain the positioning of a technocracy in this ministry addressed throughout the article. On one hand, there was the presence of a consensus about the need for a technical management of this sector in the search of generating legitimacy and autonomy. On the other hand, it happened to be a favorable political environment characterized by a wide political support from the government. Finally, the wide discretion of the technical team in the design of MIDIS and during formation of the first ministerial body of bureaucrats allowed the emergence of a technocratic institution. To this end, this article describes development of the stages of the creation of the institution, design, approval and implementation and shows a corroboration of the technocratic profile of the initial top management team of this ministry. / El presente artículo analiza el surgimiento de una tecnocracia en un sector social, a través del caso del Ministerio de Desarrollo e Inclusión Social, creado en el 2011 en respuesta a uno de los ejes centrales de la campaña electoral de Ollanta Humala: la inclusión social. Este texto busca determinar qué factores permitieron el establecimiento de una tecnocracia vinculada a la política social en un país donde esta ha estado tradicionalmente vinculada a un manejo político y clientelar. A lo largo del artículo, se abordan tres factores que explican el posicionamiento de una tecnocracia en este ministerio. Por un lado, existió un consenso sobre la necesidad del manejo técnico de este sector en la búsqueda de generar legitimidad y autonomía. Por otro lado, se dio un entorno político favorable caracterizado por un vasto respaldo político del gobierno. Por último, el amplio margen de decisión de los técnicos en el diseño del MIDIS y en la conformación del primer cuerpo ministerial permite el surgimiento de una institución de carácter tecnocrático. Para ello, esta investigación describe el desarrollo de las etapas de creación de esta institución, de diseño, aprobación e implementación, así como presenta una corroboración del perfil tecnocrático del equipo inicial de alta dirección de este ministerio.

In 2015, Sweden was one of the exemplary member states of the European Union that took in a disproportionate number of refugees. Five years later, Sweden has adopted much stricter migration policies restricting access to residence permits and citizenship. The focus has shifted to integration policies aimed at including refugees in the host society. Integration has become widely accepted as a process that is primarily a proactive adaptation and assimilation on the side of the newcomers, rather than a dynamic two-way process. Moreover, this paper argues that integration has largely been reduced to the socio-economic dimension and ignored the sociocultural dimension that is central to the integration process. Using Axel Honneth’s Theory of Recognition as a theoretical base to understand the importance of sociocultural dialogue and interpersonal integration, this paper shines a light on the problematics of current integration policies and its effects. Using empirical research this paper aims to explore the host societies understanding of integration and using Foucauldian discourse analysis the theoretical framework andSaid’s Orientalist critique, expose an underlying power dynamic between host-society and newcomers. Shining light both on governance and socio-cultural dynamics, this paper explores the gap left in sociocultural integration through the lack of dialogue and solidarity has affected the social reality of immigrants in Sweden.

No description available.