Introduction: The target of universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services—key for individual, social, and economic well-being—is unlikely to be achieved by 2030 based on the current trend. Public policy will likely need to play a key role in accelerating progress in this regard. Although perspectives from the field of policy studies can support this effort, to what extent they have been employed in the literature on energy access remains unclear. Methods: This study analyzed nearly 7,500 publications on energy access through a combination of bibliometric review and computational text analysis of their titles and abstracts to examine whether and how they have engaged with public policy perspectives, specifically, policy process research, policy design studies, and the literature on policy evaluation. Results: We discovered 27 themes in the literature on energy access, but public policy was not among them. Subsequently, we identified 23 themes in a new analysis of the 1,751 publications in our original dataset, mentioning “policy” in their title or abstract. However, few of them engaged with public policy, and even those that did comprised a rather small share of the literature. Finally, we extracted phrases pertaining to public policy in this reduced dataset, but found limited mention of terms related to the policy process, policy design, or policy evaluation. Discussion: While to some extent this might reflect the multidisciplinary nature of the research on energy access, a manual review of the abstracts of select publications corroborated this finding. Also, it shed light on how the literature has engaged with public policy and helped identify opportunities for broadening and deepening policy relevant research on energy access. We conclude that, despite their relevance to energy access, public policy perspectives have infrequently and unevenly informed existing research on the topic, and call on scholars in both communities to address this gap in the future.@en

This chapter examines whether and how the difference in the location of evaluators influences the choice of approaches, tools, and procedural issues in policy evaluation. It illustrates the differences in these dimensions of evaluation through a discussion of external and internal evaluation in the case of the Asian Development Bank and multilateral development aid. External evaluators may have a broader perspective and independence, but internal evaluators may have higher-information processing capacity and access to specialized information and records, which external evaluators may not. Impact evaluation is primarily concerned with causal attribution of changes in outcomes to the program or policy. While internal evaluators might be more interested in specific cases, external evaluators often use such techniques to generalize across cases.@en

While the emergence of big data creates several opportunities for governance and public policy, new capabilities, processes, standards, strategies, and technologies will be essential for deriving value from big data while addressing issues and mitigating risks posed by it. Arguably, above all, these will require the integration of big data analytics in public policy pedagogy. In this chapter, we examine whether public policy education has kept pace with the growth of big data research in the field, with a specific focus on the Asian context. We start by identifying prominent themes in research on big data in governance and public policy. We supplement that with an analysis of academia’s response by examining the prevalence of big data teaching in public policy programs. Based on our analysis, we highlight the current geographic and institutional dominance in research and teaching on the topic, and conclude with key lessons for the design, content, and delivery of pedagogy on big data in public policy.@en

A transition to sustainable energy will require not only technological diffusion and behavioral change, but also policy innovation. While research on energy transitions has generated an extensive literature, the extent to which it has used the policy innovation perspective – entailing policy entrepreneurship or invention, policy diffusion, and policy success – remains unclear. This study analyzes over 8000 publications on energy transitions through a bibliometric review and computational text analysis to create an overview of the scholarship, map conceptual engagement with public policy, and identify the use of the policy innovation lens in the literature. We find that: (i) though the importance of public policy is frequently highlighted in the research, the public policy itself is analyzed only occasionally; (ii) studies focusing on public policy have primarily engaged with the concepts of policy mixes, policy change, and policy process; and (iii) the notions of policy entrepreneurship or invention, policy diffusion, and policy success are hardly employed to understand the sources, speed, spread, or successes of energy transitions. We conclude that the value of the policy innovation lens for energy transitions research remains untapped and propose avenues for scholars to harness this potential.@en

Although understanding initial responses to a crisis such as COVID-19 is important, existing research on the topic has not been systematically comparative. This study uses topic modeling to inductively analyze over 13,000 COVID-19 policies worldwide. This technique enables the COVID-19 policy mixes to be characterized and their cross-country variation to be compared. Significant variation was found in the intensity, density, and balance of policy mixes adopted across countries, over time, and by level of government. This study advances research on policy responses to the pandemic, specifically, and the operationalization of policy mixes, more generally.

@en

Why and how the regulation of emerging technologies occurs is not clear in the literature. In this study, we adapt the multiple streams framework – often used for explaining agenda-setting and policy adoption – to examine the phenomenon. We hypothesize how technological change affects policy-making and identify conditions under which the streams can be (de-)coupled. We trace the formulation of the General Data Protection Regulation to show that the regulation occupied the legislative agenda when a policy window was exploited through policy entrepreneurship to frame technological change as a problem for data privacy and legislative harmonization within the European Union. Although constituencies interested in promoting internet technologies made every effort to stall the regulation, various actors, activities, and events helped the streams remain coupled, eventually leading to its adoption. We conclude that the alignment of problem, policy, politics, and technology – through policy entrepreneurship – influences the timing and design of technology regulation.

@en

While the emergence of big data raises concerns regarding governance and public policy, it also creates opportunities for diversifying the toolkit for analysis for the policy sciences as a whole, i.e., research concerning policy analysis as well as policy studies. Further, it opens avenues for practice, which together with research requires adaptation in teaching curricula if policy education were to remain relevant. However, it is not clear to what extent this opportunity is being realized in public policy research and teaching. In this study, we examine the prevalence of big data analytics in public policy research and pedagogy using bibliometric analysis and topic modeling for the former, and content analysis of course titles and descriptions for the latter. We find that despite significant scope for application of various big data techniques, the use of these analytic techniques in public policy has been largely limited to select institutions in a few countries. Further, data science has received limited attention in policy pedagogy, once again with significant geographic variation in its prevalence. We conclude that, to stay relevant, the policy sciences need to pay more attention to the integration of big data techniques in policy research, pedagogy, and thereby practice.

@en

Energy democracy is an emergent movement for bringing about technological innovation with concomitant economic, social, and political change in the energy system, one that promises a just transition to clean and affordable energy. To examine whether and how the promise of energy democracy can be fulfilled, however, more clarity on the concept is necessary. In this chapter, we conceptualize energy democracy using a four-stream variant of the multiple streams framework. From this perspective, sustainability transitions and, by extension, energy transitions can be viewed as multilevel, multiactor processes requiring not only technological innovation but also problem framing, policy alternatives’ specification, and political advocacy. The actors primarily responsible for these transition processes are technology constituencies, epistemic communities, instrument constituencies, and advocacy coalitions, respectively. Energy democracy can be conceived as public participation in these activities during transition processes. Further, as this conceptualization can be operationalized at every scale, the cross-scalar nature of energy transitions—and energy democracy—can be analyzed by modeling the influence of transition processes in one setting on the streams in another setting. The proposed framework furthers inquiry into energy democracy through examination of the what, the how, and the where of democratization in society.@en

Although learning in networks is key to transitions, the literature has juxtaposed the different actors involved. Based on a conceptual review, we posit that four distinct collective actors engage in learning in transitions: technology constituencies, epistemic communities, instrument constituencies, and advocacy coalitions. Technology constituencies promote the adoption of specific socio-technical alternatives by citizens, businesses, or governments. Epistemic communities shed light on sustainability issues at the science-policy interface. Instrument constituencies promote the creation and diffusion of specific governance arrangements. Advocacy coalitions compete politically to implement their policy preferences. These collective actors are responsible for facilitating technological learning, sustainability problem learning, policy instrumental learning, and political learning, respectively, which are in turn necessary for niche development, regime destabilization, overcoming path dependence, and political change. Consequently, the alignment of these distinct, albeit potentially overlapping, collective actors can have a profound impact on learning in transitions and the emergence of transition pathways.

@en

Although policy entrepreneurship is essential for fostering policy innovations to achieve sustainable development, the literature has conflated different types of entrepreneurship and disaggregated it using inconsistent terminology. We conceptualize entrepreneurship using a six-stream variant of the multiple streams framework (MSF)—which addresses key limitations of the original MSF—to examine entrepreneurial activities in the case of the Jyotigram Yojana, a widely recognized policy innovation for managing the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India. We find that whereas policy and political entrepreneurship no doubt played a significant role in coupling the streams and fostering this policy innovation, the process broker, program champion, and technology innovator were also important in policy formulation, implementation, and “success.” We conclude that the six-stream variant of MSF is useful for identifying and distinguishing various types of entrepreneurship involved in policy innovation for sustainability.

@en

The objective of this collection of essays is to gain insights into the different national-level state responses to COVID-19 around the world and the conditions that shaped them. The pandemic offers a natural experiment wherein the policy problem governments faced was the same but the responses they made were different, creating opportunities for comparison of both the kinds of policy tools being used and the factors that accounted for their choice. Accordingly, after surveying on-line databases of policy tools used in the pandemic and subjecting these to topic modelling to reveal the characteristics of a ‘standard’ national pandemic response, we discuss the similarities and differences found in specific responses. This is done with reference to the nature and level of policy capacity of respective governments, highlighting the critical roles played by (in)adequate preparation and lesson-drawing from past experiences with similar outbreaks or crises. Taken together the articles show how the national responses to the COVID-19 pandemic were shaped by the opportunity and capacity each government had to learn from previous pandemics and their capacity to operationalize and build political support for the standard portfolio of policy measures deployed to deal with the crisis. However, they also show how other factors such as the nature of national leadership, the organization of government and civil society, and blindspots towards the vulnerabilities of certain population segments also helped to shape policy responses to the pandemic.

@en

Although the literature on evaluation has theorized about the distinction between internal and external evaluation, hardly any research has compared them empirically. This article examines whether the lessons of internal evaluations differed from those of external evaluations in the case of international development aid. It analyzes internal evaluations of the Asian Development Bank for nearly 1000 sovereign interventions across 38 countries in the Asia-Pacific during 1996–2016, using computational text analysis or text mining techniques. The results show that internal evaluations focused more on micro- and meso-level characteristics, while external evaluations laid more emphasis on meso- and macro-level constructs, such as dimensions of policy and the institutional environment in the recipient country, or its level and rate of economic growth. The article concludes that internal and external evaluations can be combined to create a multilevel evaluation framework that integrates micro-, meso-, and macro-level lessons to facilitate better learning.

@en

Recently, it has been argued that the many works on policy learning constitute a stand-alone basis for understanding policy processes. In this study, we evaluate this claim through a bibliometric analysis of 588 publications on the topic in the Web of Science database, complemented by a literature review. We find that while the study of learning is supported by an active and growing research community, it has neither definitional clarity nor a shared vocabulary. And, further, its model of agency is both incomplete and inconsistent. As such, the subject remains more a metaphor than a framework of analysis, per se, and has little potential to advance epistemologically. Given this analysis, we argue that intellectual resources are better spent organising research on learning within existing frameworks rather than attempting to create a new stand-alone one that would contribute to the further splintering of an already fragmented field of study.

@en

Sustainable urban transport is a complex challenge requiring innovation in technologies, culture, and policies. Given the systemic nature of the issues involved, numerous studies have applied the transitions approach to urban transport. However, relatively weak conceptualization of agency in the transitions literature limits the usefulness of this approach for the governance of urban transport. The objective of this study is to contribute to the conceptualization of agency in the multilevel perspective to sustainability transitions. We propose that two types of actors exercise agency to foster innovation: technology constituencies, who promote the adoption of specific technologies by citizens, businesses, or governments; and instrument constituencies, who promote the adoption of specific policy instruments. In focusing predominantly on technological innovation, the transitions literature has generally juxtaposed these constituencies or considered them to be the same. We posit that the two constitute distinct, albeit possibly overlapping, actors and that their relationship(s) help better understand and explain how transitions evolve. We discuss the implications of this distinction for the governance of urban transport and argue that the presence of instrument and technology constituencies, and their relationship(s), should be examined empirically in future research.

@en

Using a bibliometric analysis of 547 publications on policy learning and 956 publications on learning in public policy from the Web of Science database, we identify key publications and authors involved in research on policy learning, understand how they relate to one another and to the wider literature on the topic, and investigate how questions about policy learning have been explored until now. We find little collaboration amongst scholars, limited consolidation of knowledge over time, and inadequate integration amongst research areas, leading to fragmentation in its literature within and outside policy studies. This field would benefit from a theoretical framework to clarify key concepts, synthesise findings, and structure research activity, and a systematic research agenda to address gaps in existing research.@en