IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v42y2025i3p444-465.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge is not power: Learning in polycentric governance systems

Author

Listed:
  • Pamela Rittelmeyer
  • Mark Lubell
  • Meredith Hovis
  • Tanya Heikkila
  • Andrea Gerlak
  • Tara Pozzi

Abstract

The link between knowledge and decision‐making in polycentric systems is shaped by the process of collective learning, where policy actors participate in multiple policy forums to acquire, translate, and disseminate knowledge. This article argues that the relationship between learning and participation in polycentric systems differs for actors with executive responsibilities versus specialized staff. Using a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, we show that executive staff are less likely to learn because of their incentives, resources, and position in the system. In contrast, specialized staff are more likely to learn as they form epistemic communities focused on specific policy issues. The different learning experiences of executive versus technical staff contributes to the disjunction between knowledge and power that is a feature of all polycentric systems. Bridging this gap requires institutional arrangements and training to enable the development of trust‐based relationships between decision‐makers, scientists, and other types of specialized knowledge communities. 多中心系统中,知识与决策之间的联系是由集体学习过程形成的,其中,政策行动者参与多个政策论坛来获取、转化和传播知识。本文论证,对“具有执行职责的行动者”和专业人员而言,多中心系统中的学习和参与之间的关系是不同的。通过结合定量数据和定性数据,我们表明,由于行政人员的职责、资源和在系统中的位置,他们学习的可能性较小。相比之下,专业人员更有可能学习,因为他们就特定政策议题形成认知共同体。行政人员与技术人员的不同学习经历导致了知识与权力之间的脱节,这是所有多中心系统的一个特征。弥合这一差距需要制度安排和培训,以促进决策者、科学家和其他类型的专业知识社区之间建立基于信任的关系。 El vínculo entre el conocimiento y la toma de decisiones en los sistemas policéntricos está determinado por el proceso de aprendizaje colectivo, donde los actores políticos participan en múltiples foros políticos para adquirir, traducir y difundir conocimientos. Este artículo sostiene que la relación entre aprendizaje y participación en sistemas policéntricos difiere para actores con responsabilidades ejecutivas versus personal especializado. Utilizando una combinación de datos cuantitativos y cualitativos, mostramos que el personal ejecutivo tiene menos probabilidades de aprender debido a sus responsabilidades, recursos y posición en el sistema. Por el contrario, el personal especializado tiene más probabilidades de aprender a medida que forma comunidades epistémicas centradas en cuestiones políticas específicas. Las diferentes experiencias de aprendizaje del personal ejecutivo versus el personal técnico contribuyen a la disyunción entre conocimiento y poder que es una característica de todos los sistemas policéntricos. Cerrar esta brecha requiere acuerdos institucionales y capacitación que permitan el desarrollo de relaciones basadas en la confianza entre los tomadores de decisiones, los científicos y otros tipos de comunidades de conocimiento especializadas.

Suggested Citation

  • Pamela Rittelmeyer & Mark Lubell & Meredith Hovis & Tanya Heikkila & Andrea Gerlak & Tara Pozzi, 2025. "Knowledge is not power: Learning in polycentric governance systems," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 42(3), pages 444-465, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:3:p:444-465
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12606
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12606?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:42:y:2025:i:3:p:444-465. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.