نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار مطالعات جهانی و فرامنطقه ای دانشکده مطالعات جهان دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
از حدود سال ۲۰۱۰ میلادی دولت‌های مختلف به پیش‌گامی انگلستان، به ادغام دانش مغز در فرایند حکمرانی مبادرت ورزیدند و ساختارهای سازمانی ویژه‌ای را در بدنه دولت متولی تصمیم‌سازی مبتنی بر علوم شناختی کردند. با این حال در ایران، ضمن کاربست فزاینده اصطلاح «حکمرانی شناختی» نهادینه‌سازی برای اجرای آن صورت نگرفته است. یکی از حلقه‌های مفقوده تبیین این مفهوم توجه به سایر ابعاد ذاتی دولت‌ها از جمله فرهنگ سیاسی منحصربه‌فرد آن‌هاست که در فرایند حکمرانی بازتاب می‌یابد. پرسش اصلی این است که فرهنگ سیاسی دولت‌ها چگونه بر شکل‌گیری ساختار سازمانی حکمرانی شناختی آن‌ها تأثیر گذاشته است؟ این مقاله در قالب یک پژوهش کیفی با رویکرد موردکاوی تطبیقی، تجربه سه کشور انگلستان، آلمان و هلند را در زمینه حکمرانی شناختی با یکدیگر مقایسه می‌کند. فرض ابتدای مقاله این است که فرهنگ سیاسی کشورها در برساخته شدن مدل‌های متفاوت حکمرانی شناختی آن‌ها تأثیر گذاشته است. یافته‌های مقاله نشان می‌دهد که در آلمان فرهنگ سیاسی تمرکزگرا و اجماع محور منجر به شکل‌گیری نوعی حکمرانی شناختی متمرکز شده است. در مقابل فرهنگ سیاسی پولدری در هلند به شکل‌گیری مدل شبکه‌ای در حکمرانی شناختی انجامیده است و سنت‌های دموکراتیک و پارلمانی انگلستان در قالب نوعی حکمرانی شناختی غیرمتمرکز پدیدار گشته که به تدریج به سمت مدل شبکه‌ای پیش می‌رود. نتایج حاصل از این مقاله بیانگر لزوم توجه به فرهنگ سیاسی منحصربه‌فرد کشور جمهوری اسلامی ایران در طراحی هرگونه ساختار سازمانی برای حکمرانی این کشور است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Diverse Pathways of Cognitive Governance: A Comparative Analysis of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom
نویسنده [English]
- Mandana Sajjadi
Assistant Professor, Department of Global studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
In recent years, the landscape of policymaking and political decision-making has evolved significantly, transcending traditional frameworks. The integration of behavioral sciences—encompassing cognitive science, behavioral economics, and experimental studies—has prompted governments to leverage these insights in their governance strategies. Since around 2010, various countries, led by the United Kingdom, have recognized the importance of embedding behavioral science data into their policymaking processes. However, the path to institutionalizing cognitive governance varies across nations, influenced by their unique political cultures. This study aims to conduct a comparative qualitative analysis of the experiences of the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands in embedding behavioral sciences into their policymaking frameworks. The central research question investigates how the differing political cultures of these countries have shaped their cognitive governance models.
Literature Review
Although the beliefs and attitudes of citizens have always been taken into account in policymaking, England was the first country to officially establish an institution called the Behavioral Insights Team in 2010. Around the same time, various countries began researching and examining the application of behavioral sciences and neuroscience in policymaking, resulting in the establishment of similar institutions in Canada, Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the United States. Today, many countries around the world have sought to create both formal and informal institutions to utilize brain science and behavioral sciences in their policymaking processes. The structure of these institutions has been influenced by the general culture of the country and, specifically, its political culture. Researchers generally agree on the necessity of incorporating behavioral sciences and neuroscience in the policymaking process. Mazari (2024) has attempted, using a meta-synthesis method, to provide a scientific definition of cognitive governance, defining it as governance based on the convergence of disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive studies. Mofazari, Moieni, and Sobhanifard (2023), through a systematic review of 376 articles in a reputable international database, identified eight themes as components of behavioral policymaking. The book "Behavioral Sciences and Public Policy," translated and published by Salehi and Shadkhast (2021), scientifically articulates the principles and foundations of policy-making based on behavioral sciences in an academic style. While the above-mentioned studies and similar ones—although limited in number—examine the importance of integrating neuroscience in the policymaking process, no research has been conducted in Iran that delves into the institutionalization process and its structuring, or explores the experiences of various countries in this regard. Conversely, this subject has attracted more interest from non-Iranian researchers. Khadzhiradiyova and Hershko (2019) conducted their research in Ukraine to examine the process of institutionalizing insights derived from behavioral sciences in governance. Kuzon and Yildiz (2021) undertook a similar study on Turkey's experience of institutionalizing public policy units based on cognitive and behavioral sciences. They noted that although 200 public institutions have been established worldwide to integrate insights from brain science into public policymaking, Turkey has recently succeeded, with the help of the British Embassy in Ankara, in establishing its first official institution. Fitzmaurice (2019), in an article titled "Specialists with Behavioral Insights in Government," critically examines this process, aiming to reduce some of the prevailing optimism surrounding brain-based governance. Gofen and his colleagues (2021) also take a research-oriented and academic perspective on the process of institutionalizing brain science in public policymaking.
Methodology
This research employs a qualitative comparative case study methodology to analyze the cognitive governance structures in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands from 2010 to the present. The study begins with a comprehensive literature review and data collection on the political cultures of the three countries. Data sources include governmental reports, academic literature, and reputable national and international organizations. The analysis focuses on the impact of political culture on the formation of cognitive governance structures. Key concepts such as civic engagement, trust in government, political ideology, and political socialization are examined to provide a nuanced understanding of each country's political culture. The research also considers historical, social, and economic factors that may influence political culture and, consequently, cognitive governance. The findings are presented through a thematic analysis, highlighting the similarities and differences in cognitive governance models across the three countries. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of how political culture shapes the institutionalization of cognitive governance.
Results
The findings indicate that the political culture of each country plays a crucial role in shaping its cognitive governance structure. In Germany, the centralized and consensus-driven political culture has resulted in a more structured and formalized approach to cognitive governance. The establishment of behavioral insights units within federal ministries reflects this centralized model, where decision-making processes are heavily influenced by expert opinions and data-driven approaches.Conversely, the Netherlands' polder model promotes a decentralized and networked approach to cognitive governance. The collaborative nature of Dutch politics encourages the integration of behavioral insights across various sectors, fostering a culture of dialogue and negotiation among stakeholders. This networked model allows for greater flexibility and adaptability in policymaking, as different actors contribute to the development and implementation of behavioral strategies. In the United Kingdom, the evolution of cognitive governance has been marked by a gradual shift from a centralized to a more decentralized model. The establishment of the Behavioral Insights Team (BIT) in 2010 marked a significant milestone in the UK's approach to integrating behavioral insights into policymaking. While the initial focus was on public health and energy efficiency, the BIT has expanded its scope to include various policy areas, reflecting the UK's commitment to leveraging behavioral science in governance.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial and moral support provided by the Innovation Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran, which made this research possible
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Cognitive Governance
- Policy-Making
- Political Culture
- Behavioral Insights
- World Studies
)