Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis 1

Hisschemöller, Matthijs, Hoppe, Rob·2018·Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis

Abstract

This chapter argues that four types of problems can be discerned in the policy process: structured, unstructured, and two types of moderately structured problems. It also argues that policymakers show the inclination to move away from unstructured problems to more structured ones; even at the cost of losing touch with the true complexity and normative volatility of the problems as experienced by other groups. When "containment" efforts fail, problems become unstructured and controversies flare up. This is illustrated in a case study of the so-called "Not In My BackYard"-phenomenon in hazardous waste facility siting. Intractable controversies occur when policymakers stubbornly continue to address the "wrong" policy problem. The chapter shows how these controversies can be transformed into a productive process of learning by problem structuring and problem choice. It discusses political prerequisites for such policy learning and reviews some implications of policy design as well as in policy analysis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9781351325721-4

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hisschemöller, M., & Hoppe, R.
Venue
Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2018-01-16
Pages
47-72
OpenAlex
W2560925251
Cited by
300
References
0
FWCI
60.41
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.