مشارکت ذینفعان در دستور کار خط‌مشی عمومی کمیسیون انرژی مجلس شورای اسلامی

محورهای موضوعی : خطمشی‌گذاری عمومی در مدیریت

محمود دشت بزرگ ¹ , فواد مکوندی ² , وحید چناری ³ , قنبر امیر نژاد ⁴ , سعید جعفری نیا ⁵

1 - گروه مدیریت دولتی، واحد شوشتر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شوشتر، ایران
2 - گروه مدیریت دولتی، واحد شوشتر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شوشتر، ایران (نویسنده مسئول)[e-mail]
3 - گروه مدیریت دولتی، واحد شوشتر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شوشتر، ایران
4 - گروه مدیریت، واحد تهران جنوب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
5 - دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه خوارزمی تهران، تهران، ایران

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/10/07 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/12/13 تاریخ انتشار : 1401/02/01

کلید واژه: مجلس, خط مشی عمومی, دستورکار, مشارکت, ذینفعان,

چکیده مقاله :

هدف: باز بودن مجلس می تواند فرصت های مهمی را برای مشارکت ذینفعان در کارکردهای اصلی مجلس از جمله خط‌مشی گذاری فراهم کند. هدف اصلی پژوهش تبیین شرایط علّی مشارکت ذینفعان در دستورکار خط‌مشی عمومی کمیسیون انرژی مجلس شورای اسلامی است.روش پژوهش: این پژوهش از نـظر هـدف، کاربردی و از نـظر ماهـیت، توصیفی- پیمایشی می باشد. داده ها با استفاده از مصاحبه های نیمه ساختارمند، گردآوری شده اند. جامعه آماری هدف این پژوهش شامل خبرگان، اساتید و کارشناسان، نمایندگان و اعضای کمیسیون انرژی مجلس بوده است که به تصادف تعداد 22 نفر انتخاب شده‌اند. برای پاسخ به سؤال اصلی پژوهش، بررسی سوالات فرعی و تجزیه و تحلیل یافته‌های جمع آوری شده، از آمار توصیفی و آمار استنباطی با نرم افزارهای spss و Lisrel استفاده شده است. این تحقیق یک تحقیق کیفی و کمی است که از روش داده بنیاد استفاده نموده است. پس از مصاحبه های نیمه ساختارمند شرایط علّی مشارکت ذینفعان در دستور کار خط‌مشی عمومی کمیسیون انرژی مجلس شورای اسلامی دارای مؤلفه‌های رفتار ذینفعان، ماهیت مشارکت، عوامل مدیریتی و ماهیت دستور کار خط‌مشی، شناسایی شدند. یافته ها: این تحقیق یک تحقیق کیفی و کمی است که از روش داده بنیاد استفاده نموده است. پس از مصاحبه های نیمه ساختارمند شرایط علّی مشارکت ذینفعان در دستور کار خط‌مشی عمومی کمیسیون انرژی مجلس شورای اسلامی دارای مؤلفه‌های رفتار ذینفعان، ماهیت مشارکت، عوامل مدیریتی و ماهیت دستور کار خط‌مشی، شناسایی شدند.نتایج: نظر به اینکه ذینفعان مانند پلی برای قرار گرفتن جریان مسائل در دستورکار خط‌مشی، عمل می کنند و در شرایط فعلی خلاء و فضای خالی حضور فعال ذینفعان بین مسائل و دستورکار وجود دارد، این پژوهش جهت گیری تدوین دستورکار خط‌مشی عمومی از حالت سلسله مراتبی را به فرآیندی تغییر داده و در راستای فرآیند مدار کردن به جای فرد مدار بودن عملکرد کمیسیون انرژی مجلس است.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Objective: Modern societies are increasingly shaped by the interaction and collaboration of a diverse range of actors and stakeholders to provide credible policies. Involving a diverse range of actors is therefore not only a matter of adhering to the principle of democratic participation, but also a means of setting agendas that are socially strong. The openness of the parliament can provide important opportunities for stakeholder participation in the main functions of the parliament, including policy-making. The main purpose of this study is to explain the causal conditions of stakeholder participation in the general policy agenda of the Energy Commission of the Islamic Consultative Assembly.  Method: This research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-survey in terms of nature. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. The statistical population of this study included experts, professors and experts, representatives and members of the Parliamentary Energy Commission who were randomly selected from 22 people. To answer the main research question, review the sub-questions and analyze the collected findings, descriptive statistics and inferential statistics with SPSS and Lisrel software were used. This research is a qualitative and quantitative research that has used the data method of the foundation. After semi-structured interviews, the causal conditions of stakeholder participation in the general policy agenda of the Energy Commission of the Islamic Consultative Assembly were identified with the components of stakeholder behavior, nature of participation, managerial factors and nature of policy agenda. Findings: This research is a qualitative and quantitative research that has used the data foundation method. After semi-structured interviews, the causal conditions of stakeholder participation in the general policy agenda of the Energy Commission of the Islamic Consultative Assembly were identified with the components of stakeholder behavior, nature of participation, managerial factors and nature of policy agenda. Results: Considering that stakeholders act as a bridge for the flow of issues in the policy agenda, and in the current vacuum and empty space there is an active presence of stakeholders between the issues and the agenda, this study aims to develop a general policy agenda from It has changed the hierarchical mode to a process, and in line with the process of orbitalization, instead of being individualistic, the performance of the Parliamentary Energy Commission.

منابع و مأخذ:

دانایی فرد، حسن. امامی، سید مجتبی. استراتژی‌های پژوهش کیفی: تاملی بر نظریه پردازی داده بنیاد. اندیشه مدیریت، سال اول، شماره دوم , 69-97، سال 1368.

هیل، مایکل. هیوپ، پیتر. اجرای خط‌مشی عمومی، حکمرانی در نظریه و عمل. ترجمه معدنی، جواد و خدایی، نیما. انتشارات آذرین مهر، تهران، چاپ اول، سال 1397.

Alemanno, A.  (2015), Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy  (November 15, 2015). Regulatory Policy Outlook, OECD Publishing, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2701675.

Anderson, j. E.  (2003). Public policymaking, an introduction.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, pp. 1 – 34.  

Bjørgen, A.A., Fossheim, B. K., Macharis, C.  (2021). How to build stakeholder participation in collaborative urban freight planning, Cities 112, Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Blomkamp, E.  (2021). Systemic design practice for participatory policymaking, POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE. Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Bochel, H., Berthier, A.  (2019). A Place at the Table? Parliamentary Committees, Witnesses and the Scrutiny of Government Actions and Legislation, Social Policy & Society: page 1 of 17, Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/S1474746418000490.

Bomberg, E.  (2013). The Comparative Politics of Fracking: Agenda-Setting, Networks and Framing in the US and Europe. Annual meeting of the UK Political Science Association. Scotland, UK, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.

Bonafont, L. C., Marquez, L.M.  (2011). Mobilization of Interest Group in the Espanish Parliament. General Conference of the ECPR Iceland.

Brezovar N.  (2019). Early Stakeholder Engagement for Better Regulation of the Ngo Sector-Positive Experience from Slovenia. Paper for the 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference. Available at: https:// www.nispa.org/files/conferences/2019/ e-proceedings/ system_files/papers/stakeholder-engagementbrezovar.pdf.

Birkland, T. A. Schwaeble, K. L.  (2019). Agenda Setting and the Policy Process: Focusing Events. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.

Cardinia Shire Council.  (2021). Community Engagement Policy 2021–24, Intranet and public website, DRAFT 1.2.

Coen, D., Katsaitis, A.  (2021). Governance, accountability, and political legitimacy: who participates in the European parliament’s committee hearings  (ECON 2004–2014), Journal of European Integration, DOI: 10.1080/07036337.2021.1922898.

Desai, A.  (2011). Policy Agenda-Setting and the Use of Analytical Agenda-Setting Models for School Sport and Physical Education in South Africa. South Africa: University of South Africa.

De Smedt, P., Borch, K.  (2021). Participatory policy design in system innovation, POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1887592.  

Dorf, M.C., Sabel, C.F.  (1998).  A constitution of democratic experimentalism, Columbia Law Review, Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Vol. 98, No. 2, 267. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/120

Eaton, W.M., Brasier, K.J., Burbach, M.E., Whitmer, W., Engle, E.W., Burnham, M., Quimby, B., Chaudhary, A.K., Whitley, H., Delozier, J., Fowler, L.B., Wutichh, A., Bauschi, J.C., Beresford, M., Hinrichs, C.C., Burkhart-Krieselk, C., Preisendanzl, H.E., Williamsm, C., Watsonn, J., Jason Weigle, J.  (2021). A Conceptual Framework for Social, Behavioral, and Environmental Change through Stakeholder Engagement in Water Resource Management, SOCIETY & NATURAL RESOURCES, VOL. 34, NO. 8, 1111–1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2021.1936717.

ESCAP.  (2018). Effective Stakeholder Engagement for the 2030 Agenda. Training Reference Material, Thailand, Version 1.

Fasone, C., and N. Lupo. 2015. “Transparency Vs. Informality in Legislative Committees: Comparing the US House of Representatives, the Italian Chamber of Deputies and the European Parliament.” Journal of Legislative Studies 21  (3): 342–359. doi:10.1080/13572334.2014.999533.

Forbici, G., Divjak, T.  (2017). Measures for Strategic Development of Civil Participation in Decision Making in the Eastern Partnership Countries. European Union and Implemented by the Council of Europe.

Forkert, J.  (2017). Parliamentary Committees: Improving public engagement, ASPG Conference 27 – 30 September 2017, Hobart.

Franzén, F.  (2012). Creating pathways for stakeholder participation in water management  (Doctoral dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology).

Gomes, R.C.  (2004). Who ar The Relevant Stakeholders to The Local Government Contex? Empirical Evidences on Environmental Influences in the Decicion-Making Progress of Enhlish Local Authorities. Brazilizn Administration Revew BAR, v. 1, n. 1, p. 34-52, Jul./Dec. 2004, 34-52.

Gray, B.  (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for multiparty problems, San Francisco, Jossey-Bag.

Gudowsky, N., Peissl, W., Sotoudeh, M., Bechtold, U.  (2012). Forward-looking activities: incorporating citizens’ visions: a critical analysis of the CIVISTI method. Poiesis Prax 9:101–123 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-012-0121-6.

Hazlehurst, D.  (2001). Networks and policy making: from theory to practice in Australian social. Australia: Australian national University.

Hendriks, C.M., Kay, A.  (2016). From ‘opening up’ to democratic renewal: Deepening public engagement in legislative committees, Forthcoming in Government and Opposition.

Johnson, J. K.  (2005). The Role of Parliament in Government. Washington, D.C., World Bank Institute.

Jørgensen, M.S, Jørgensen, U., Clausen, C.  (2009). the Social shaping approach to technology foresight. Futures 41:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.038.

Kiryluk, H., Glińska, E., Ryciuk, U., Vierikko, K., RollnikSadowska, E.  (2021).  Stakeholders engagement for solving mobility problems in touristic remote areas from the Baltic Sea Region, PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253166.

Kriesi, H., Ferrera, M., Waltraud Schelkle, W.  (2021). The theoretical framework of SOLID – a research agenda, European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 810356 Published in the framework of Project SOLID, Policy Crisis and Crisis Politics, Access at www.solid-erc.eu.

Kaufman, H.  (1976). Are Government Organizations Immortal? Washington, DC: Brooking Institution.

Mhazo, A., Maponga, C.C.  (2021). Agenda setting for essential medicines policy in sub-Saharan Africa: a retrospective policy analysis using Kingdon’s multiple streams model, DOI: 10.1186/s12961-021-00724-y, Free PMC article,

Matthews, F.  (2021). The value of ‘between-election’ political participation: Do parliamentary e-petitions matter to political elites? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 23 (3) 410–429, DOI: 10.1177/1369148120959041 journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi

OECD.  (2009). Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services, OECD Studies on Public Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264048874-en.

Ostrom, E.  (1990). Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. USA. 

Otjes, S.  (2019). No politics in the agenda-setting meeting’: plenary agenda setting in the Netherlands. WEST EUROPEAN POLITICS, VOL. 42, NO. 4, 728-745.

Papaloi, A., Gouscos, D.  (2011). E-Parliaments and Novel Parliament-to-Citizen services, JeDEM 3 (1): 80-98, ISSN 2075-9517 http://www.jedem.org.

Pedersen, H.H., Halpin, D., Rasmussen, A. )2015.( Who Gives Evidence to Parliamentary Committees? A Comparative Investigation of Parliamentary Committees and Their Constituencies, Journal of Legislative Studies 21  (3): 408–427. doi:10.1080/13572334.2015.1042292

Pluchinotta, I., Kazakçi, A., Giordano, R., Tsoukiàs, A.  (2020). Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes, HAL Id: hal-02324106 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02324106.

Rasheed, A.R., Abdulla, A.  (2020). Evaluating stakeholder participatory processes in policy development for Marine Protected Areas, Marine Policy, 112,

Schattschneider, E.  (1960). The Semi Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stewart, J. Jr.  (1991). Policy Models and Equal Educational Opportunity. Political Science and Politics, No 24, 167-173. 

Strauss, A., Corbin, J.  (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Su Seo, H.  (2016). Parliament and Direct Forms of Citizen Participation: The political impact of Citizens’ Initiative in Finland. ECPR General Conference. Prague: University of Tampere, Finland.

Tshabalal, S.  (2013). Public Participation Framework for the South African Legislative Sector, Legislative Sector of South Africa.

Walker, A., Jurczak, N., Bochel, C.  (2019). How Public Engagement Became a Core Part of the House of Commons Select Committees. Parliamentary Affairs, 72  (4). pp. 965-986. ISSN 0031-2290 https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsz031.

Weingart, P., Joubert, M., Connoway, K.  (2021). Public engagement with science Origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PLoS ONE 16 (7, e0254201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254201.

Yalmanov, N.  (2021). Public Policy and Policy-Making, XXIII International Conference Culture, Personality, Society in the Conditions of Digitalization: Methodology and Experience of Empirical Research Conference.