Uso de compuestos de boro en la química supramolecular

The general framework proposed to assess the transferability of policies and / or practices is built on the assumption of a particular understanding of the transfer process, which is conceived from a set of elements.

The elements are the basic inputs that should be available in order to assess transferability. The general framework proposed contains the following six elements:

1) Jurisdictions and entities involved 2) Aim of the transfer process 3) Object being transferred 4) Sources of policy transfer 5) External influences 6) Context conditions

5.2.6.1 Jurisdictions and entities involved

As a first input, the framework proposed needs to identify the entities and jurisdictions involved in the transfer process. An entity may be defined as an organization that has a decision-making power related to the particular policy field where the transfer occurs. A jurisdiction may be defined as the area and policy field over which the entity can exert its decision power and wants to execute the transfer⁵⁴.

In its simpler version, the transfer process only requires the participation of a single entity, the importer entity. As a response to a problem detected in its own jurisdiction, the importer entity decides to engage in a transfer process that will push it to select a relevant policy or practice applied in another jurisdiction. Then, the entity will learn about the policy / practice, will eventually modify it and finally will implement it in its

54 In fact, though the entity may be capable of exerting its decision power over a larger policy field or area, it can foresee the transfer only for a part of it. The term jurisdiction will be used in the framework referred to this restricted meaning.

own jurisdiction. All along this process, the importer entity will not need to interact with the entity or entities that were responsible for implementing the policy or practice in its original context.

The transfer process may also be engaged with an active participation of the entity or entities that were responsible for the implementation of the selected policy/practice in the exporter jurisdiction. This involvement would possibly result in a more accurate learning about the policy/practice that is being transferred.

However, depending on the policy field and the degree of complexity of the object being transferred, there may be more than a single importer entity. For example, the transfer of policies against congestion in an urban area may require the participation of national, regional and metropolitan agencies as importer entities, given that the three networks are present in that area.

The framework proposed assumes that an importer entity is able to perform by itself all the stages identified for the transfer process. So, it will have the ability to define, select, learn from, modify and implement a policy or practice previously applied in another jurisdiction. As well, the framework assumes that the importer entity is already in possession of a complete knowledge on the conditions present in its own jurisdiction.

5.2.6.2 Aim of the transfer process

The framework proposed needs a clear definition of the aim of the transfer process, which will be a central element to the whole assessment of transferability.

According to the sequence assumed for the transfer process, this aim may be identified in general terms with the solution of the problem detected in the importer jurisdiction.

Therefore its degree of concretion will be greatly dependent on the characterization of the problem, which can be done at different levels of definition. The concretion of the problem will spread through all the process of transferability assessment, constraining in turn its level of definition. This process of characterization may entail the breaking down of the initial problem in secondary problems, each of which can be at the origin of new transfer processes

For instance, a metropolitan authority may identify congestion as relevant problem to be addressed. However, it will be able to characterize it at different levels of definition:

as “congestion”, as “congestion in peak hours”, as “congestion in the trunk network in peak hours” or as “congestion in the West accesses to the city centre in the morning peak hour”. The level of detail achieved in the characterization of the problem will determine the degree of concretion of the policy transfer process and of the transferability assessment.

Furthermore, once characterized the problem and before starting the selection phase, the

transfer process produces a search of entities that have faced a similar problem. The framework assumes that this search defines a number of cases related to a similar problem in the same policy field. This assumption excludes from the transferability assessment the policies/practices originated in other policy fields or related to a different problem. Though it could be certainly possible to formulate some preliminary considerations about their transferability, a sound assessment would require a much more detailed knowledge than the one produced in a preliminary search. Moreover, the specific difficulties related to their modification and implementation is thought to fall in the domain of innovation.

5.2.6.3 Object being transferred

The framework proposed seeks to be useful for any level of definition within the continuum ranging from policy to practice. This statement means that the transfer process may be initiated at any point of the policy definition process.

In order to operationalize this continuum, the framework distinguishes three types of objects that can be involved in a transfer process, each resulting from a different level of definition. These objects are policies, measures and practices:

• A policy is defined as a course of action by which an entity seeks to solve a problem or reach an objective. It generally results from a process in which the entity translates its understanding of the problem into general objectives, proposes various alternatives and selects one.

• A measure is defined as any of the actions undertaken by the entity in order to implement a given policy. A policy may be implemented through one or more measures, normally obtained through a selection process.

• A practice is defined as the result of implementing a measure in the real world.

The application of a measure to reality entails the choice of a wide number of technical, informational and managerial details that may lead to different practices. Contrary to policies and measures, which remain in a theoretical level, a practice can be observed in reality.

For example, a metropolitan agency confronted to heavy congestion in the accesses to the city centre in peak hours, could seek to transfer a successful policy from abroad. In its search the agency could find different policy alternatives, like “increasing the offer of public transport along the corridors involved”; “promoting a higher occupancy of private vehicles traveling along the corridors involved”; “introducing a toll scheme in the accesses to the city centre” or a combination of them. In this case, the transferability assessment of the alternatives would be conducted over the object policy.

If the metropolitan agency had already defined or selected a policy (e.g. “promoting a

higher occupancy of private vehicles traveling along the corridors involved”), it could seek to transfer successful measures already applied in other jurisdictions, among alternatives such as “building new HOV lanes”, “converting some lanes of the accesses into HOV lanes”; “provide economic incentives for car sharing”; “collaborating with companies generating demand on the corridors involved to define mobility plans” or a combined solution. In this case, the transferability assessment of the alternatives would be conducted over the object measure.

If the metropolitan agency already knows what measure it wants to implement (e.g.

“convert some lanes of the accesses into HOV lanes”), then several practices can be found in other jurisdictions. They would be differentiated by the number of lanes reserved for HOV, the occupancy rate of the vehicle giving access to these lanes, the physical segregation or not from the rest of the traffic flow, the control system avoiding misuse of the HOV lanes, etc.

The nature of these three types of object likely to be transferred, policies, measures and practices, will be further clarified at the time of defining the levels involved in the policy transfer (section 5.2.7)

5.2.6.4 Sources of transfer

The framework proposed assesses the transferability of policies, measures or practices that have been previously preselected. The objects included in this set of preselected items are referred to as sources of transfer.

The sources of transfer are policies, measures or practices that already exist, that have already been implemented somewhere and have proven feasible (I.e. the framework does not apply to objects never adopted before). Furthermore, the transfer process foresees two additional criteria to propose an object as a source of transfer.

The first criterion limits the objects of transfer to those that have been implemented by other entities in order to solve similar problems. As previously explained, this criterion restricts the sources of transfer to those policies/practices that share a similar aim.

The second criterion restricts the sources of transfer to those objects considered adequate by the importer entity. This criterion may involve several considerations from the importer entity. It may produce an assessment on existing policies/practices to detect best or successful practices; it may limit the sources of transfer to those originated in jurisdictions which share some basic characteristics with the importer jurisdiction; it may select them following the inertia of previous transfers (i.e. if the entity has already borrowed policies / practices from another entity, it will be more likely to consider policies / practices implemented by this jurisdiction); it may focus the search of policies/practices on ideologically similar jurisdictions, etc.

Depending on the conditions set by the importer entity to find adequate policies/practices, the sources of transfers will result from a rational process (more or less bounded), from an incremental approach to policy or from a decision taken with low or no relation to the problem posed.

5.2.6.5 External influences

The framework proposed acknowledges the presence of external influences that may condition the transferability of the different policies/practices preselected as sources of transfer. By external, the framework refers to influences originated outside the institutional environment of the importer entity and jurisdiction. According to this characteristic, the importer entity may accommodate or resist the external influences, but it has no direct or indirect power to change them.

The external influences may act at various levels of the transfer process. They can drive the definition step, through a particular characterization of the problem, they may condition the preselection step, by imposing selection criteria to the importer entity, but they can also condition the possibilities of success for a policy/practice when it is implemented in the importer jurisdiction, thus its transferability.

The form adopted by the external influences may vary, involving different degrees of coercion and definition. Sometimes they are expressed in the form of legislation applicable to the importer entity, while in other occasions their action is less defined and more vague (e.g. a convergence trend resulting from globalization).

Not infrequently, a transfer process makes part of a policy-making process happening at a wider level, which may shape and influence the transfer process itself. An example of such external influence may be represented by the effects of decisions, recommendations and directives of the European Union on the transfer processes that may be undertaken by national governments.

5.2.6.6 Context conditions

Finally, there is a need to understand the local context in order to fully assess the opportunities and constraints embedded in a given transfer. Accordingly, the framework proposed must take into account the conditions and limitations to the transfer that may arise from the particular context existing in the importer jurisdiction.

Context conditions are clearly distinguished from external influence because they shape internally the characteristics of the importer jurisdiction. In fact, context conditions may be related to the nature and characteristics of the importer entity, to the policy-making process or to the technological, institutional, economic or social settings prevailing in the importer jurisdiction.

When one or more of these conditions are openly incompatible with the implementation and/or functioning of the object being transferred, they become limitations to the transfer, which may be finally overcome or end up by excluding the transfer of the object. Examples of such limitations could be the absence of social and/or political support; the resistance to changes in legislation, policy or institutional frameworks; the absence of appropriate technology or management systems; potential environmental impacts; absence of resources for the transfer and the maintenance of the policy transferred, etc.