.png){kind=icon}
返回
Comparing blunders in government
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1111/1475-6765.12230.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
Much attention has been paid to government blunders' and policy disasters'. National political and administrative systems have been frequently blamed for being disproportionately prone to generating mishaps. However, little systematic evidence exists on the record of failures of policies and major public projects in other political systems. Based on a comparative perspective on blunders in government, this article suggests that constitutional features do not play a prominent role. In order to establish this finding, this article (a) develops theory-driven expectations as to the factors that are said to encourage blunders, (b) devises a systematic framework for the assessment of policy processes and outcomes, and (c) uses fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to identify sets of causal conditions associated with particular outcomes (i.e., blunders). The article applies this novel approach to a set of particular policy domains, finding that constitutional features are not a contributory factor to blunders in contrast to instrument choice, administrative capacity and hyper-excited politics.
Keyword:
government blunder
policy fiasco
fsQCA
large projects
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
IF:
4.2
论文数:
2.3K
被引数:
6.0K
机构
引用论文
.png){kind=icon}
Client as colleague: Therapeutic contracting with the seriously mentally ill.客户作为同事：与严重精神疾病患者的治疗性契约。
PREAI
分享收藏
查看更多内容