Hurlbert Margot, Gupta Joyeeta
Centre for the Study of Science and Innovation Policy, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina, 2155 College Avenue, Regina, SK S4P 4V5 Canada.
Governance and Inclusive Development, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht, Amsterdam, 1018 WV The Netherlands.
Int Environ Agreem. 2024;24(2-3):373-391. doi: 10.1007/s10784-024-09644-y. Epub 2024 Jun 19.
There is debate about whether complex problems should be addressed technocratically or whether they should be politicized. While many tend to favour technocratic decision-making and evidence based policy, for others politicization of policy problems is fundamental for significant policy change. But politicization does not always lead to problem solving. Nor is it always necessary. This paper addresses the question: Under what circumstances should problems be politicized, and what is the effect of such politicization? It adds politicization, through windows of opportunity, to the split ladder of participation to assess policy change through two case studies: successful and unsuccessful constitutional change in Ecuador (2008) and Chile respectively (2022). It argues that where there is no agreement on either science or policy, politicization is required to address lack of consensus in values, but constitutional protection is needed to protect minorities and the vulnerable, their access and human right to water. De-politicization stymies policy change potentially harming democracy. This paper argues for a citizen engaged exploration of the complex problem of climate change and its impacts on water, but a targeted politicization coincident with, but developed well in advance of, windows of opportunity. Moreover, policy framing correlated with complex problems continues to be a key consideration. Furthermore, alliances of disparate actors, elections of new political leaders and considerations of property rights and justice issues are paramount. Significant constitutional policy change reflects social learning, but subsequent court actions by policy entrepreneurs is required to effectively implement this change. Framing constitutional change to protect rights to water and effect international agreements (including the Warsaw International Mechanism under the climate change regime) advances water justice and may increase success.
关于复杂问题应通过技术官僚方式解决还是应被政治化，存在争议。虽然许多人倾向于支持技术官僚决策和基于证据的政策，但对另一些人来说，政策问题的政治化是重大政策变革的基础。但政治化并不总是能解决问题，也并非总是必要的。本文探讨的问题是：在何种情况下问题应被政治化，这种政治化的效果如何？通过机会之窗将政治化添加到参与的分层阶梯中，通过两个案例研究来评估政策变化：分别是厄瓜多尔（2008年）和智利（2022年）成功和不成功的宪法变革。本文认为，在科学或政策上没有达成共识的情况下，需要进行政治化以解决价值观上的缺乏共识问题，但需要宪法保护来保护少数群体和弱势群体、他们获取水的机会以及用水人权。去政治化会阻碍政策变革，可能损害民主。本文主张公民参与对气候变化及其对水的影响这一复杂问题的探索，但要有针对性地进行政治化，与机会之窗同步，但要提前充分准备。此外，与复杂问题相关的政策框架仍然是一个关键考虑因素。再者，不同行为体的联盟、新政治领导人的选举以及产权和正义问题的考量至关重要。重大的宪法政策变革反映了社会学习，但政策倡导者随后的法律行动对于有效实施这一变革是必要的。构建宪法变革以保护水权并落实国际协定（包括气候变化制度下的华沙国际机制）可推动水正义，并可能提高成功率。
