• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Conducting Sustainability Assessments >Chapter 6. Using Assessment Tools in the Policy Context
【24h】

Chapter 6. Using Assessment Tools in the Policy Context

机译：第6章在策略上下文中使用评估工具

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Quality resources go into designing good assessment tools, but the tool's effectiveness is in its use. That use depends on many factors other than the best intentions of both the designer and the user. The OECD has recognised the importance of the policy framework in which regulatory impact assessments are done but this tends to focus on framework controls being imposed by the Centre, rather than built into the policy function at a granular, Departmental or even team level (OECD, 2007). This paper has attempted to flag up the difficulties in operating at that granular level which, unfortunately, is where policy is actually done.rnTools that can be used as a one-off check at a point in the process are more likely to be used effectively than those that assume continued engagement and application. The latter are subject to the extent that the policy project is properly managed in a way that allows that application. There can be a danger in the policy tool itself substituting for project management, which it probably was not designed to do and would have to be distorted to achieve. The PRG's analysis serves to warn of the limitations of assuming too much structure and planning in the policy process - even to the extent that there is a process at all, in some cases.rnIntegrated tools that try to cover multiple issues are also less likely to be effective than ones tailored for particular policies. This is problematic for sustainability assessment tools, which tend to attempt to cover the three pillars. Managing the trade-offs across these pillars is always a challenge but it is arguable that the most that such tools should aim to do is to raise awareness in the mind of the user of the range of issues that are affected. Government interventions are rarely neutral in their impacts but are also prone to unintended consequences on other government policies. The trade off in a sustainable development assessment is just one illustration of the ripple effect of interventions. The experience of the MCPR indicates that an institutional challenge on cross-boundary conflicts is likely to be more balanced than a single issue team trying to resolve impacts on other policies through one assessment instrument.
机译：质量资源用于设计好的评估工具，但工具的有效性在于使用。该使用取决于许多因素，除了设计者和用户的最佳意图。经合组织已经认识到进行监管影响评估的政策框架的重要性，但这往往侧重于由中心实施的框架控制，而不是在粒度，部门甚至团队级别上纳入政策职能（经合组织， 2007）。本文试图指出在这样的粒度级别上进行操作的困难，不幸的是，该粒度级别实际上是在执行策略。rn在过程中的某个时刻可以用作一次性检查的工具更可能被有效地使用。比那些假设继续参与和应用的人。后者受制于以允许该应用程序的方式正确管理策略项目的程度。代替项目管理的政策工具本身可能存在危险，它可能不是设计来做的，因此必须扭曲才能实现。 PRG的分析旨在警告政策流程中假设过多的结构和计划的局限性，甚至在某些情况下甚至完全存在流程。rn尝试涵盖多个问题的集成工具也不太可能比针对特定政策量身定做的有效。对于可持续性评估工具而言，这是一个问题，因为它往往试图涵盖这三个支柱。在这些支柱之间进行权衡取舍始终是一个挑战，但可以争论的是，此类工具应旨在实现的最大目的是提高用户对受影响问题范围的意识。政府干预的影响很少是中性的，但也容易对其他政府政策产生意想不到的后果。可持续发展评估中的权衡只是干预措施连锁反应的一个例证。 MCPR的经验表明，与跨部门冲突的机构性挑战相比，试图通过一种评估工具解决对其他政策影响的单一问题团队可能更加平衡。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号