Volume 19, 2017 Issue #3 – A Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Specialist PPP Units’ Methodologies for Conducting Value for Money Appraisals Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and PracticeVolume 19, Issue 3, 2017A Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Specialist PPP Units’ Methodologies for Conducting Value for Money Appraisals Anthony Boardman & Mark Hellowell Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group Source: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1387-6988 E-ISSN: 1572-5448 Purchase Issue Become a Member for Free Access ArticlesA Comparative Analysis and Evaluation of Specialist PPP Units’ Methodologies for Conducting Value for Money AppraisalsAuthor Anthony Boardman & Mark Hellowell Subjects: public‒private partnership, value for money, comparative evaluation, discount rate, risk, social welfare, optimism bias. Pages: 191–206 Is Part Of: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2017, Vol.19(3) Abstract: Governments throughout the world are turning to public‒private partnerships (PPPs) as a means of providing new infrastructure. The decision to adopt a PPP over conventional government procurement is usually based on a value for money (VfM) appraisal, but this analysis is conducted differently in different countries. This article describes the correct way to conduct VfM analysis if the goal is to minimize the present value of the costs to the Treasury and if the goal is to maximize social welfare. It then compares the documented methodologies of nine specialist PPP units. It identifies four ways in which these methodologies depart from either of the correct approaches, and shows how each departure favors the PPP option. Finally, it shows how the UK approach might be augmented to determine the best value to society. Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group Source: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1387-6988 E-ISSN: 1572-5448 DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2016.1190083 Link to purchase article and view full text A Comparative Assessment of Elite Policy Recruits in CanadaJonathan Craft &Mark Daku Subjects: elite policy recruits, policy analytical capacity, policy work, comparative, survey, Canada. Pages: 207–226 Is Part Of: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2017, Vol.19(3) Abstract: Recent case studies and large-N survey evidence has confirmed long-suspected shortages of public sector “policy capacity”. Studies have found that government policy workers in various jurisdictions differ considerably with respect to types of policy work they undertake, and have identified uneven capacity for policy workers to access and apply technical and scientific knowledge to public issues. This suggests considerable difficulties for government’s ability to meet contemporary policy and governance challenges. Despite growing attention to these matters, studies have not examined the “elite” policy workers many governments recruit to address these capacity shortages. Using an established survey instrument, this study of two Canadian recruitment programs provides the first comparative analysis of elite policy recruits, as policy workers. Three research questions anchor the study: (1) What is the profile of these actors? (2) What types of policy work do “elite” policy analysts actually engage in? (3) How does their policy work compare by recruitment program? The article provides fresh comparative data on the nature of elite policy work and policy analytical capacity, but, more importantly, a crucial baseline for future comparative study of how elite recruitment may facilitate “supply-side” capacity gains expected from recruitment programs. Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group Source: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1387-6988 E-ISSN: 1572-5448 DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2016.1191200 Link to purchase article and view full text Delegation of Clinical Authority, Administrative Culture and Policy Adoption: A Comparative AnalysisAuthors Baruch Levi & Amos Zehavi Subjects: comparative policy analysis, delegation of clinical authority, healthcare reforms, bivariate correlations Pages: 227–244 Is Part Of: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2017, Vol.19(3) Abstract: Numerous countries have adopted reforms that allow medical personnel other than physicians to engage in tasks that traditionally were exclusively performed by physicians. This policy is controversial because it challenges the medical profession’s traditional boundaries. This study is an exercise in comparative policy research based on the experience of 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. It evaluates the contribution of different structural factors – socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional – to policy adoption. Based on both quantitative analysis and an examination of how delegation unfolded in Israel, the role of administrative culture is highlighted: a category that combines cultural legacies and institutional properties in explaining policy adoption. It is argued that because, in entrepreneurial administrative cultures, administrators are more likely to possess a managerial mindset than in Rechtsstaat cultures, and also have more institutional leeway for action, delegation is more likely to be adopted in the former. Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group Source: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1387-6988 E-ISSN: 1572-5448 DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2016.1188479 Link to purchase article and view full text ArticlesFiscal Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Analysis of the Intergovernmental Grant Systems in Indonesia and ThailandAuthor Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha & Achakorn Wongpredee Subjects: comparative decentralization policy, intergovernmental fiscal transfer, Gini coefficient and percentile analysis, Indonesia, Thailand. Pages: 245–261 Is Part Of: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2017, Vol.19(3) Abstract: Decentralization can inadvertently lead to local fiscal disparity. One type of intergovernmental fiscal transfers, the general-purpose grant, can help equalize local fiscal imbalances. This article examines the extent to which the general-purpose grant systems in Indonesia and Thailand help mitigate local fiscal disparity. The findings show that the general-purpose grant system in Thailand does not effectively address disparities in local fiscal conditions. Localities with more own-source revenues and higher per capita income receive more general-purpose grants than those with weak fiscal capacity. In contrast, Indonesia’s general-purpose grant allocation system provides more resources for economically disadvantaged and conflict-ridden provinces. Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group Source: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1387-6988 E-ISSN: 1572-5448 DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2016.1138659 Link to purchase article and view full text Regulating Assisted Reproduction in Canada, Switzerland, and the USA: Comparing the Judicialization of Policy-MakingChristine Rothmayr Allison & Audrey L’Espérance Subjects: assisted reproduction, courts and public policy, court impact, Canada, Switzerland, USA, comparative public policy. Pages: 262–276 Is Part Of: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2017, Vol.19(3) Abstract: This article analyses the extent to which courts shape policies for assisted reproduction. While the USA is considered to be the most litigious country, Canada has observed a growing involvement of the courts from the 1980s onward, and Switzerland is characterized by a modest degree of judicialization. Based on national patterns, we would expect litigation and court impact to vary across these three countries. As the empirical analysis reveals, policy-process-specific variables such as the novelty of regulation, self-regulation by key stakeholders, and the policies in place better explain the variation in the judicialization of policy-making. Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group Source: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1387-6988 E-ISSN: 1572-5448 DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2016.1183281 Link to purchase article and view full text Global Renewable Electricity Policy: A Comparative Policy Analysis of Countries by Income StatusAuthors Elizabeth Baldwin, Sanya Carley, Jennifer N. Brass & Lauren M. MacLean Subjects: comparative policy, renewable electricity, cross-national policy analysis, feed-in-tariff, developing countries, low-income, middle-income, high-income Pages: 277–298 Is Part Of: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2017, Vol.19(3) Abstract: Although the drivers of renewable electricity (RE) are well-established among Western high-income countries, little is known about the factors that encourage RE development elsewhere. This paper analyzes an unprecedented, original dataset of 149 countries from 1990 to 2010 to compare the policy instruments and other factors that influence RE adoption across low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We find the factors driving RE development vary both across income group and between hydroelectric and non-hydro generation. Most notably for environmental concerns, non-hydroelectric RE generation is driven by feed-in-tariffs and renewable portfolio standards in high-income countries, feed-in tariffs alone in middle-income countries, and by subsidies in low-income countries. Non-policy drivers of RE also vary by country income level. Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group Source: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1387-6988 E-ISSN: 1572-5448 DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2016.1166866 Link to purchase article and view full text Book ReviewsLiah Greenfeld, Globalisation of Nationalism: The Motive-Force Behind 21st Century PoliticsAuthor : Jonathan Hearn Pages: 299-300 Is Part Of: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2016, Vol. 19(3) Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group Source: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1387-6988 E-ISSN: 1572-5448 DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2017.1333692 Link to purchase article and view full text Timothy Cadman, Lauren Eastwood, Federico Lopez-Casero Michaelis, Tek Narayan Maraseni, Jamie Pittock, and Tapan Sarker, The Political Economy of Sustainable Development: Policy Instruments and Market MechanismsAuthor : J. Timmons Roberts Pages: 300-301 Is Part Of: Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2016, Vol. 19(3) Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group Source: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group ISSN: 1387-6988 E-ISSN: 1572-5448 DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2017.1333693 Link to purchase article and view full text