Analisis de politicas publicas

Solo disponible en BuenasTareas
  • Páginas : 33 (8089 palabras )
  • Descarga(s) : 6
  • Publicado : 19 de octubre de 2009
Leer documento completo
Vista previa del texto
Policy Evaluation Using Stakeholder Analysis and Multi-Attribute Utility Technology Methods : A Case Study of Intellectual Property Protection Policy in Thailand
UTHAI CHAREONWONG * National Electronic and Computer Technology Center(NECTEC), Ministry of Science Technology and Environment, Thailand. E-mail: mbzxfuc2@stud.man.ac.uk HUGH CAMERON Policy Research in Engineering, Science andTechnology (PREST), The University of Manchester, UK. E-mail: Hugh.Cameron@man.ac.uk

* Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

Arguments over technology policy typically turn out to hinge on disagreement about dimensions of value, how to evaluate, and people who affect and are affected by such policies. Most of technology policies deal with specific decision involving with technology, legal, social, andeconomic factors which some of them are hardly to quantify. Meanwhile, all people involving in such policies may view differently depend on their interests and information they received. This paper presents an application of Stakeholder Analysis and Multi-Attribute Utility Technology methods for policy evaluation. Both methods help to identify a set of attributes which reflects indicators of policyperformance and then evaluate the indicators base on each stakeholder group who has interests in the policy. A policy for protection of intellectual property of software industry in Thailand was selected as a case study. A set of multi-attribute (policy evaluation indicator) was developed. It consisted of 68 criteria and separated into 12 attribute groups. These 12 attribute groups can use asevaluation criteria which indicate policy effectiveness, policy efficiency, policy resource adequacy, and policy responsiveness. Twenty-one experts were identified from 3 groups of stakeholders namely software developers/retailers, policy-makers, and software users. The experts made evaluation on the 12 attribute groups by firstly given levels of important or weight scores to each attribute group, thenscored the satisfactory level of each attribute. Final scores for overall evaluation were computed from multi-attribute value function by simply multiply satisfactory score of each single criteria with its weighting score and then sum all scores together. Besides the overall evaluation scores, integration of both methods in policy evaluation can provide satisfied levels, policy strengths andweaknesses, existing situation and future scenario for every single attribute and each attribute group. The paper also discusses effects to policy stakeholders, advantages, disadvantages, and further a p p l i c a t i o n s i n p o l i c y e v a l u a t i o n .

1. INTRODUCTION

Arguments over technology policy typically turn out to hinge on disagreement about dimensions of value, how toevaluate, and people who affect and are affected by such policies. Most of technology policies deal with specific decision involving with technology, legal, social, and economic factors which some of them are hardly to quantify. Meanwhile, all people involving in such policies may view differently depend on their interests and information they r e c e i v e d .

Practically, evaluations of S&T policyformalize many technological and economic relationships in trying to present an accurate picture of the “total outcome” of the various aspects. The final evaluation report usually indicates the policy outputs and policy impacts indic ator by indicator. The decision-makers must then somehow use their

preferences to integrate all of these indicators in their minds and come up with an judgement toevaluate the overall performance of the policy whether it is good or bad, and it should be continued or terminated. This is very difficult especially for the policy evaluation which has lots of indicators.

This paper presents an application of Stakeholder Analysis and Multi-Attribute Utility Technology (MAUT) methods for policy evaluation. Both methods help to identify a set of attributes...
tracking img