Mercedes Botto Andrea Carla Bianculli - Flacso

More documents

Recommendations

Info

initial period of tariff preferences negotiation – 1985 to 1988 – and which was part of the Integration and Economic Program (PICE). The second episode, instead, is portrayed as a failed case: the negotiation of the Common External Tariff (CET) between 1991 and 1994, where in spite of the technical complexity of the issue at stake, research and knowledge did not have a prominent role in this particular decision-making process. The analysis of both episodes is intended to identify the type of knowledge produced, the articulation established with policymakers, and the factors that either promoted or hindered its use in the policy process. The information and data presented are based on secondary resources and the analysis of 18 interviews conducted with policymakers and researchers in the field of foreign trade, representing both private and public research centres, and who were directly involved in the process under Raúl Alfonsín’s (1983-1989) and/or Carlos Menem’s (1989-1999) administrations. This paper is structured into four parts. In the first one, we identify and analyze the literature contributions in terms of the conceptual and methodological definitions. The second section describes the spatial and temporal context in which the nexus between research and decisionmaking effectively occurred. In the third part, we delve into the analysis of both episodes of policy change and focus on the research-policy relationship. The fourth section offers a comparative analysis of the field research, and an initial impact evaluation – assessment. Finally, the conclusion presents the main lessons derived from both case studies, and proposes some policy recommendations regarding the enhancement of the utilization of empirical research by policymakers in the region in the years to come. 1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPT DEFINITION Interest in the role of ideas and academics on the decision-making process is not new. During the Post-war, interest arose as a consequence of the increasing complexity of decisions, the expansion of public intervention into new areas, and the greater significance of social sciences in the planning and evaluation phases of policies. Later on, other phenomena contributed to this acknowledgement, namely, the role of ideas in terms of the structuring and affirmation of paradigms of reference, and the development of the so-called public-private networks where expert knowledge is attributed a privileged role. In sum, the impact of ideas over the decision-making process has been strongly debated in the political and academic literature since the Post-war period till today. In terms of the impact or influence of research on public policy, two main paradigms can be identified regarding the role social researchers – taken as knowledge producers – play in the public decision-making processes [Brunner et al., 1993]. The first of these paradigms is part of the policymaking theory developed during the 1950s in the United States. This approach promotes a favourable attitude towards social and political engineering, and argues that researchers play a fundamental role within the decision-making process since they provide the necessary knowledge 4
and instruments for the rationalization of the decision-making and coordination processes. In other words, they provide the empirical evidence that clarifies doubts and reduces the uncertainty brought about by policy reform. Based on the assumption that the decisional process is linear and incremental, four phases are identified within this model. In each of these phases, there is one main actor that is responsible and who stamps his activity specificities and own particular characteristics on the process. Thus, for example, the decision to include the problem on the public agenda is an activity which corresponds to the government leaders – the executives – who arbitrate between the conflicting visions and opinions on the issue, while during the formulation – and/or design – phase of the policy, academics and experts are the ones who propose alternatives and solutions. During the implementation phase, and mainly motivated by the distribution costs of the policy, interest groups or lobbies may press on the government or different public offices to have their interests contemplated. Finally, during the evaluation or monitoring phase, responsibility is shared among external experts and the population in general. In turn, this entails a synergetic dynamic [Cobb, Ross, and Ross, 1976]. While this first approach argues that social researchers play a key role in the rationalization of the decision-making process, the second paradigm assumes a rather sceptical vision and characterizes the decisional process as mainly chaotic. From this perspective, decisions are the result of mutual adjustments among the different players and the diverse arenas where they interact. Within this “building blocks” game, researchers are just another player, endowed with a very specific type of knowledge – namely, scientific knowledge – and their influence depends on their interaction with the knowledge of other local actors. The “engineering model of information use”, which argues that the produced information would fit into the decision to be made, was thus superseded by an approach based on the idea that there are multiple decision-making arenas and that various actors are involved in this game, being endowed with only partial information and local knowledge. These actors include social researchers and academics, whose knowledge – based on scientific rules – is only one of the many competing sources of knowledge and information. However, arguments were put forward in the sense that only in exceptional cases does empirical research produce a direct, instrumental, and clearly identifiable impact on the decision-making process. On the contrary, in most cases, the decisional process is diffuse and lacks a concrete order of stages; it is routine that governs. Hence, if research and information do have an impact, this is only an indirect process. This is what has been catalogued as “the enlightenment function of research” [Weiss, 1979], which illustrates the idea that knowledge gained by means of research provides a diffuse “enlightenment” function and broadens the existing knowledge base of policymakers. Thus, as long as it offers an understanding and interpretation of the data and the situation that is critical to the policy decision, research may lead to a gradual shift in concepts and paradigms. In other words, Weiss’ enlightenment model highlights the role of research as clarifying, accelerating, and legitimizing changes in conceptual thinking, and therefore, in policies. 5
Page 1 and 2: THE IMPACT OF RESEARCH IN TRADE POL
Page 3: INTRODUCTION By the mid-1980s, the
Page 7 and 8: In sum, we assume a vast idea of ac
Page 9 and 10: The process of reform and liberaliz
Page 11 and 12: the discussions with the World Bank
Page 13 and 14: fundamental to energize and legitim
Page 15 and 16: services, customs, transport and co
Page 17 and 18: insertion within the multilateral t
Page 19 and 20: from the long process of sustained
Page 21 and 22: objectives. First, he had to advice
Page 23 and 24: The list elaborated by the SICE was
Page 25 and 26: hindered all pressure or lobby acti
Page 27 and 28: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs dev
Page 29 and 30: work had to face referred to the la
Page 31 and 32: around the lowest tariffs - from 5
Page 33 and 34: In terms of the factors that either
Page 35 and 36: In both episodes of policy change,
Page 37 and 38: When analyzing the second dimension
Page 39 and 40: During the negotiation of the PICE,
Page 41 and 42: International Organization, 46(1):

Mercedes Botto Andrea Carla Bianculli - Flacso

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?