literature review - Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 5th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $10

Question Description

Please read the attached chapter 9 to complete this assignment. Please find the below question to complete from tutor.

This assignment will be one of several throughout your PhD program that we use to help you prepare for the dissertation process. One of the core competencies necessary to succeed in a doctoral program is the ability to identify other research that pertains to your own. This means you'll have to identify similar research, read the papers, and assimilate prior work into your own research. An annotated bibliography helps you develop and hone these research skills.

This paper will be a literature review. You will focus on:

  • How stakeholder engagement affects IT projects
    • Define stakeholders
    • Describe stakeholder management
    • List pros and cons of stakeholder engagement
  • Focus on IT Projects

You paper must be in correct APA format, use correct grammar, and will need to include at least five (5) resources, ALL of which must:

1) Be current. Published within the last few years.

2) Be peer-reviewed.

3) Relate directly to using simulations for policy making. The papers you select must address how IT is used to model behavior for policy making.

USE YOUR OWN WORDS!!!! DO NOT PLAGIARIZE!!!!

Every resource you choose must be peer reviewed. That means the paper must have undergone a formal peer review before being published in a journal or presented at a conference. You must ensure that your resources have undergone rigorous reviews. In most cases, you can find out the review process for a conference or journal by visiting the appropriate web site. Do not simply assume that a resource is peer reviewed - check it out.

Here are a few URLs with additional information: (I strongly suggest that you look at these. Really.)

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/liter...

https://libguides.uwf.edu/c.php?g=215199&p=1420828

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chapter 9 Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: Observations and Lessons from International Experience Natalie Helbig, Sharon Dawes, Zamira Dzhusupova, Bram Klievink and Catherine Gerald Mkude Abstract This chapter provides a starting point for better understanding how different approaches, tools, and technologies can support effective stakeholder participation in policy development. Participatory policy making involves stakeholders in various stages of the policy process and can focus on both the substance of the policy problem or on improving the tools and processes of policy development. We examine five international cases of stakeholder engagement in policy development to explore two questions: (1) what types of engagement tools and processes are useful for different stakeholders and contexts? And (2) what factors support the effective use of particular tools and technologies toward constructive outcomes? The cases address e-government strategic planning in a developing country, energy policy in a transitional economy, development of new technology and policy innovations in global trade, exploration of tools for policy-relevant evidence in early childhood decision making, and development of indicators for evaluating policy options in urban planning. Following a comparison of the cases, we discuss salient factors of stakeholder N. Helbig () · S. Dawes Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, 187 Wolf Road, Suite 301, 12205 Albany, New York, USA e-mail: nhelbig@ctg.albany.edu S. Dawes e-mail: sdawes@ctg.albany.edu Z. Dzhusupova Department of Public Administration and Development Management United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), New York, USA e-mail: dzhusupova@un.org B. Klievink Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX, Delft, The Netherlands e-mail: a.j.klievink@tudelft.nl C. G. Mkude Institute for IS Research, University of Koblenz-Landau, Universitätsstr. 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany e-mail: cmkude@uni-koblenz.de © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 M. Janssen et al. (eds.), Policy Practice and Digital Science, Public Administration and Information Technology 10, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-12784-2_9 177 178 N. Helbig et al. selection and representation, stakeholder support and education, the value of stakeholder engagement for dealing with complexity, and the usefulness of third-party experts for enhancing transparency and improving tools for engagement. 9.1 Introduction Complex public problems are shared and dispersed across multiple organizations and domains (Kettl 2002). Consider, for example, the array of concerns associated with improving air quality or assuring the safety of food products. The formal governmental responses to these specific public needs are addressed through public policies. Policy might focus on different geographic locations, processes, or products, or could specify how certain outcomes are defined, observed, and assessed. Moreover, individuals, families, communities, industry, and government itself are all affected by policy choices, and they all have interests in both the decision-making process and the final decisions (Bryson 2004). In light of seemingly intractable and complex social problems, public administrators have shifted toward governance activities that allow citizens and stakeholders to have deeper involvement in the policy-making process and the work of government (Bingham et al. 2005). Governance models which focus on quasi-legislative activities such as participatory budgeting, citizen juries, focus groups, roundtables, or town meetings (Bingham et al. 2005; Fishkin 1995) create opportunities for citizens and stakeholders to envision their future growth (Myers and Kitsuse 2000), clarify their own policy preferences, engage in dialogue on policy choices, or bring various groups to consensus on proposals (McAfee 2004). The models vary based on degree of involvement by the general population, whether they occur in public spaces, if the stakeholders are actually empowered, and whether they lead to tangible outcomes (Bingham et al. 2005). Stakeholder engagement objectives may also vary by their point of connection with the policy process (Fung 2006). The policy process is complex and there are many different ways to conceptualize how it works. The stages heuristic of public policy making is one of the most broadly accepted (Sabatier 1991). Although the utility of the stages model has limits, and numerous advances in theories and methods for understanding the policy process have been made, the stages heuristic continues to offer useful conceptualizations (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier 1993). While specification and content of the stages vary somewhat throughout the literature, however (as shown in Fig. 9.1), models often comprise some combination of problem identification, agenda setting, formulation, adoption, implementation, and policy evaluation (Lasswell 1951; Easton 1965; Jones 1977). More recent conceptualizations involve feedback across the various stages. Research in both the public and private sectors has identified a number of benefits associated with stakeholder engagement in governance. Stakeholders’ interests illuminate the multiplicity of factors that underlie policy problems, decisions, and implementation. Direct engagement of stakeholders increases public understanding 9 Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development 179 Fig. 9.1 Stages of the policy process of the issues and the consequences of different choices. Accordingly, engagement generates more options for policies or actions. Engagement brings more information into the deliberation process from different kinds of stakeholders so that decisions are more likely to avoid unintended consequences and fit better into existing contexts. Engagement also reveals both conflicts and agreements among different stakeholder groups. While taking stakeholders into account is a crucial aspect of solving public problems, policy development includes both powerful and powerless stakeholders within the process (Bryson 2004). Some stakeholders have the power, knowledge, or resources to affect the policy content, while others are relatively powerless but nevertheless are affected, sometimes in dramatic ways (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000). Thus, open and evenhanded stakeholder engagement, especially among those with conflicting viewpoints, can sometimes resolve differences and build trust in the policy-making process and help secure public acceptance of decisions (e.g., Klievink et al. 2012). In the past 20 years, specialized technologies, electronic communication, and advanced analytical, modeling, and simulation techniques have been developed to support governance processes. Administrators, analysts, and planners must decide how and when to engage citizens and stakeholders in governance, particularly during the different stages of policy making. They must also consider which mechanisms 180 N. Helbig et al. to use for managing the relationships (Bryson 2004) and must select from a variety of tools and techniques. In this chapter, we begin to explore two questions: (1) What types of engagement tools and processes are useful for different stakeholders and contexts? And (2) what factors support the effective use of particular tools and technologies toward constructive outcomes? The next sections start by reviewing the foundational elements of stakeholder theory and its relation to governance, including a summary of tools and techniques used to identify stakeholders and analyze stakeholder interests and ways to classify types of engagement. We then offer five case stories of stakeholder engagement in complex and dynamic settings across the world including e-government strategic planning in a developing country, exploring different uses of evidence in early childhood decision making, developing technology and policy innovations in global trade, and involving citizens in the design of energy policy and transportation planning. The cases vary in both policy content and the extent to which newer technologies were used to deal with the complexity of the engagement process, their accessibility and understandability to outsiders, and the advantages and disadvantages they offer to expert stakeholders as compared to laymen. We then compare the cases, discuss their similarities and differences, and conclude with a discussion of the usefulness of different tools and processes for different stakeholders and contexts and the factors that support their effectiveness. 9.2 Foundations of Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder engagement, as a concept, originated within organizational studies as an approach to managing corporations (Freeman 2010; Bingham et al. 2005; Donaldson and Preston 1995; Mitchell et al. 1997). This approach has since been adapted for use by public sector organizations to highlight the importance of stakeholders in various aspects of the policy-making process (Bingham et al. 2005). Bingham et al. (2005) situate stakeholders as part of “new governance” concepts where government actively involves citizens as stakeholders in decision making through activities such as deliberative democracy, participatory budgeting, or collaborative policy making. Research on stakeholder inclusion in government processes has been found to enhance accountability, efficiency in decision-making processes, and good governance (Ackerman 2004; Flak and Rose 2005; Yetano et al. 2010). The growing popularity of stakeholder analysis reflects an increasing recognition of stakeholder influences on decision-making processes (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000). 9.2.1 Defining Stakeholders The term “stakeholder” is defined differently by different disciplines. Most definitions mention similar stakeholder categories such as companies and their employees 9 Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development 181 or external entities such as suppliers, customers, governments, or creditors. In the public sector, the definition of stakeholder emphasizes categories of citizens defined by demographic characteristics, life stages, interest groups, or organizational boundaries (Bingham et al. 2005; Ackerman 2004; Yetano et al. 2010). Stakeholders can be both internal to the government (e.g., the government organizations responsible for policy implementation) and external to it (e.g., the industries, communities, or individuals to be affected by government actions or rules). In this chapter, we use Freeman’s (1984) definition of stakeholder as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s objectives. In the public sector, “organization” is understood to mean a government entity or body with responsibility for public policies or services. In the simplest terms, those who can affect or may be affected by a policy can be considered stakeholders in that policy. In traditional expert-based approaches to policy making, the needs of stakeholders are indirectly addressed by public agencies and acknowledged experts (Bijlsma et al. 2011; De Marchi 2003). In these expert-based approaches, internal and external stakeholders may be consulted, but in participatory approaches, stakeholders are not only consulted but are also involved in a structured way to influence problem framing, policy analysis, and decision making. Bijlsma et al. (2011) define participatory policy development as the “influence of stakeholder involvement on the development of substance in policy development, notably the framing of the policy problem, the policy analysis and design, and the creation and use of knowledge” (p. 51). 9.2.2 Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Stakeholder identification and analysis is an important first phase in stakeholder engagement processes (Freeman 2010). Analysis typically involves five steps (Kennon et al. 2009): identifying stakeholders, understanding and managing stakeholders, setting goals, identifying the costs of engagement, and evaluating and revisiting the analysis. Through these various steps, an analysis helps to distinguish stakeholders from non-stakeholders and to identify the ways that stakeholders need to be engaged during different parts of the policy cycle. Over time, the mix of stakeholders in a particular policy issue is likely to change, as new stakeholders may join the engagement activities, while others may drop out (Elias et al. 2002) or shift among different types. Joining, dropping out, or moving among types thus dynamically changes the configuration and analysis of stakeholders over time. Various techniques for stakeholder identification and analysis are reviewed in the literature. These techniques focus attention on the interrelations of groups or organizations with respect to their interests in, or impacts on policies within, a broader political, economic, and cultural context. These techniques also provide ways for analysts to understand stakeholder power, influence, needs, and conflicts of interest. Bryson (2004) characterized stakeholder identification as an iterative process highlighting the need to determine the purpose of involving stakeholders 182 N. Helbig et al. and cautioning that these purposes may change over time. He describes a stage approach to selecting stakeholders: someone or a small group responsible for the policy analysis develops an initial stakeholder list as a starting point for thinking about which stakeholders are missing. Brainstorming and the use of interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, or other information-gathering techniques can be used to expand the list. Bryson (2004) notes “this staged process embodies a kind of technical, political, and ethical rationality” (p. 29). He also lists a variety of analysis techniques, such as power and influence grids (Eden and Ackermann 1998), bases of power diagrams (Bryson et al. 2002), stakeholder–issue interrelationship diagrams (Bryant 2003), problem-frame stakeholder maps (Anderson et al. 1999), ethical analysis grids (Lewis 1991), or policy attractiveness versus stakeholder capability grids (Bryson et al. 1986). Each of these tools is used in different situations to help understand and identify various aspects of stakeholder interests. 9.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder engagement methods are the means by which stakeholder views, information, and opinions are elicited, or by which stakeholders are involved in decision making. Engagement can take various forms. The International Association for Public Participation identified five levels of stakeholder engagement: (IAP2 2007). At the simplest level, informing, stakeholders are merely informed, for example, via websites, fact sheets, newsletters, or allowing visitors to observe policy discussions. The level of engagement in this form is very low and suitable only to engage those stakeholders with low urgency, influence, importance, or interest (Bryson 2004). Various methods are available for consulting, including conducting interviews, administering surveys to gather information, opening up draft policy documents for public comment, or using Web 2.0 tools to gather ideas. The main goal of this form of engagement is to elicit the views and interests, as well as the salient information that stakeholders have with regard to the policy concern. Involving stakeholders is a more intensive engagement where stakeholders work together during the policy development process. Some tools used to ensure that ideas, interests, and concerns are consistently understood and addressed include scenario building (Wimmer et al. 2012), engaging panels of experts such as the Delphi method (Linstone and Turoff 1975), or group model building that includes simulating policy choices, games, or role playing (Andersen et al. 2007; Vennix et al. 1996). Models, simulations, or scenarios can be used as boundary objects (Black and Andersen 2012; Star and Griesemer 1989) to enable diverse sets of stakeholders to have a shared experience and to exchange localized or specialized knowledge in order to learn, create common understanding, and identify alternative choices. All these levels focus on the flow of information among actors, but the direction and intensity vary. The most intense engagement is realized through full collaboration with or even empowerment of stakeholders. In the IAP2 spectrum of public participation, collaboration means stakeholders’ advice and recommendations will be incorporated in 9 Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development 183 the final decisions to a maximum extent (IAP2 2007). Empowerment means that the final decision making is actually in the hands of the public. Realistically, collaboration and empowerment exist within institutional and legal parameters. For example, the policy-making body (usually a government agency) will need to put some constraints or boundaries around the policy options that comport with the limits of its legal authority. For both levels, consensus-building approaches are essential. This can be done through citizen juries (Smith and en Wales 2000), the enactment of a stakeholder board (urbanAPI1 ; Klievink et al. 2012), or by setting up living labs (Tan et al. 2011; Higgins and Klein 2011) in which stakeholders collaboratively develop, implement, and evaluate solutions within a given context. All of these approaches not only assist in incorporating stakeholders’ views into the policy process but also enhance acceptance by stakeholders because they were part of the deliberation process (e.g., see Klievink and Lucassen 2013). 9.3 Cases Below we offer five case stories about stakeholder engagement in policy making. The cases were recommended by a diverse set of eGovPoliNet consortium partners who shared an interest in tools and techniques to support the policy process. The main goal of the case stories is to highlight the roles that stakeholders can play in policy development and to discuss how different methods, tools, and technologies could be used for engaging stakeholders in the policy process. Each case describes a situation where stakeholders were involved in the problem definition, agenda setting, and formulation stages of the policy cycle. In all cases, a trusted third party, generally university researchers, facilitated the process and applied the tools. The cases vary in policy content and in the extent of technology use in the engagement process. They represent different policy domains, and governments at different stages of development with different political systems. The first three cases focus on substantive policy choices for e-government strategic planning, alternative energy policy, and global trade inspection. The last two concentrate on stakeholder involvement in improving tools to support the policy-making process. Of those, the first focuses on connecting policy makers and modelers in building a supportive framework for assessing early childhood programs and second involves stakeholders in defining assessment indicators to be built into a model that supports urban planning decisions. In this section, we describe these diverse situations as the foundation for the comparison presented in Sect. 9.4 where we identify similarities and differences that suggest approaches, tools, and techniques that are useful and effective in different contexts and with different kinds of stakeholders. For each case below, we present the key characteristics of the policy-making situation and assess the purpose of stakeholder engagement. With respect to stakeholder 1 UrbanAPI is an EC FP7 project focused on interactive analysis, simulation, and visualization tools for agile urban policy implementation http://www.urbanapi.eu/. 184 N. Helbig et al. identification and analysis, we cover both the identification of stakeholders (types) involved and the methods used for identificat ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

Tutor_TimDodge
School: New York University

I am done with the work buddy. Let me know if you need any clarifications.

Running head: STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Literature Review: Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGEMENT IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT

2

Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development
Stakeholders are groups, individuals, or organizations who have an impact on an occasion
of a decision, outcome or activity. Similarly, this group of people sometimes has the perception
of getting effects from some of the activities happening around them. They contribute a large
percentage to the process of policy activity and services, develop p plans, conceive the idea, and
make decisions among many other things (Alqaisi, 2018). It is clear that the management of
policy requirements is critical for a successful project. According to Helbig, Dawes,
Dzhusupova, Klievink, & Mkunde (2015), stakeholders’ management concept originated from
t...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors