Managing the “hollow state”: procedural policy instruments and modern governance
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Abstract: Modem governments face a paradox in that, theoretically, their bureaucratic capacity for action in terms of knowledge, expertise, budgets and personnel resources is high, while, at the same time, phenomena such as globalization and democratization have severely undermined their ability to directly control social outcomes. Recent works by Canadian, Dutch, American, British and French scholars have begun to describe a common set of policy instruments contemporary governments now use to indirectly steer social actors towards their preferred policy options. Unlike traditional “substantive” instruments, which directly affect the delivery of goods and services in society, these “procedural” policy instruments are intended to manage state‐societal interactions in order to assure general support for government aims and initiatives. Used on an ad hoc basis in the past, these tools have become an essential feature of modern governance. This article advances the study of these procedural policy instruments by developing a taxonomy and outlining the rationale for choosing between particular instrument types. Sommaire: Les gouvernements se trouvent aujourd'hui face à un paradoxe: d'une part, leur pouvoir d'intervention est en principe important au niveau des connais‐sances, de I'expertise, des budgets et du personnel; d'autre part, les phénomènes tels que la mondialisation et la démocratisation ont fortement sapé leur capacité d'influer directement sur les résultats sociaux. Des travaux récents d'auteurs canadiens, néer‐landais, américains, britanniques et français amorcent la description d'un ensemble commun d'instruments directifs dont se servent actuellement les gouvernements pour orienter indirectement les intervenants sociaux vers les options politiques que les gouvernements préfèrent. À I'encontre des instruments classiques « substantifs » influant directement sur la prestation de biens et services au sein de la société, ces instruments « procéduraux » visent é gkrer l'interaction État‐société de manière à ce que les initiatives et objectifs gouvernementaux reçoivent l'appui de tous. Utilisés de manière ponctuelle dans le passé, ces outils sont devenus un éléments essentiel de la gouvemance moderne. Cet article fait progresser l'étude de ces instruments de procédure pour l'élaboration des politiques, en définissant une taxonomie et en pré‐cisant les raisons pour lesquelles un type d'instrument particulier serait préférable à un autre.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- Canadian Public Administration
- Topic
- Public Policy and Administration Research
- Field
- Social Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- —
- Funders
- —
- Keywords
- Political scienceHumanitiesBureaucracyGlobalizationCorporate governancePublic administrationManagementPoliticsEconomicsArt
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes