Week 7.1 Policy Transfer, Policy Learning, Policy Convergence, Policy Diffusion. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 27
About This Presentation
Title:

Week 7.1 Policy Transfer, Policy Learning, Policy Convergence, Policy Diffusion.

Description:

... etc.) as well as 'policy entrepreneurs' and supra-national organisations. ... Supra-national institutions EU, OECD, World Bank, UN. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:933
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: paulca3
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Week 7.1 Policy Transfer, Policy Learning, Policy Convergence, Policy Diffusion.


1
Week 7.1 Policy Transfer, Policy Learning,
Policy Convergence, Policy Diffusion.

2
SUMMARY
  • Refers to the evidence for - and causes of -
    similarities in policy across regions.
  • A variety of terms are in use transfer is used
    as an umbrella term for the rest. Learning may
    be voluntary, convergence and diffusion may
    suggest a relative absence of transnational
    forces.
  • The actors involved are a combination of usual
    suspects (elected officials, parties, civil
    service, etc.) as well as policy entrepreneurs
    and supra-national organisations.
  • The nature of transfer can be seen on a
    continuum, from voluntary to coercive. This
    includes indirect coercion which may suggest a
    perceived need to transfer, often without exerted
    influence.
  • A variety of policy-related factors may be
    transferred from ideologies and wholesale
    programmes to administrative arrangements or just
    broad ideas. Negative lessons may also be
    learned.
  • The level of transfer ranges from complete
    duplication to broad inspiration.
  • Policy conditions, geography and ideology affect
    the willingness to study other regions.
  • Transfer is most likely if the policy is simple,
    the values of borrower and lender coincide and
    the political structures/ administrative
    arrangements are similar.
  • There is a clear link between the transfer
    literature and issues of rationality, governance
    and agenda-setting.

3
What Is It? Convergence
  • Starting point is evidence of similarities across
    countries policy goals, content, instruments,
    outcomes and/ or styles.
  • It could mean independent problem solving based
    on parallel domestic pressures
  • But Bennet suggests not calling this convergence

4
Policy Learning (Rose)
  • Lesson-drawing across time (i.e. own experience)
    and then space (other regions)
  • Extent of learning varies
  • Negative lessons also learned

5
Policy Transfer
  • Umbrella term with overarching definition the
    process by which knowledge about policies,
    administrative arrangements, institutions and
    ideas in one political system (past or present)
    is used in the development of policies,
    administrative arrangements, institutions and
    ideas in another political system (Dolowitz and
    Marsh)
  • Learning is one type of transfer (voluntary)

6
Policy Diffusion
  • Suggests more passive process?
  • Refers to similar adoptions of policy without
    evidence of emulation?
  • Associated with analysis of US states
  • Note that a precise definition of all 4 is
    elusive.
  • Differences may not be significant (bar e.g.
    learning as a voluntary subset of transfer)

7
Who Does It?
  • Usual Suspects within political systems -
    elected officials, political parties,
    bureaucrats/ civil servants, pressure groups,
    etc.
  • Policy entrepreneurs consultants/ experts
    selling best practice (inappropriately), NGOs,
    international policy communities and
    professionalisation
  • Supra-national institutions EU, OECD, World
    Bank, UN. Note that national governments can
    perform this role with devolved authorities.
  • Note importance of exporting and importing
    regions although this can change

8
Why Transfer - Is it Voluntary?
  • Remember the broader questions within political
    systems why change policy? Who decides? Who
    influences?
  • Additional discussion of the role of coercion
  • Dolowitz and Marsh continuum of transfer

9
  • Voluntary transfer following dissatisfaction
    with policy or a natural tendency to look abroad.
    Note that transfer search can be used to
    legitimise existing policy.
  • Direct Coercive transfer borrowing country
    influenced (effectively forced?) to adopt a
    policy. Role of World Bank in developing
    countries, but also EU in Europe. Influence of
    MNCs on regulations.
  • Indirect Coercive transfer voluntary but driven
    by perceived need for region B to change policy
    because region A is an important market for
    exports, they have a close working relationship,
    there is a need to keep up. Region As
    policies may also cause externalities a factor
    for Canada (US) and Wales (England).

10
Policy Transfer Continuum
11
Discussion of continuum
  • Transfer may contain voluntary and coercive
    elements (implementation/ discretion?)
  • Perceived need varies and is subject to internal
    political processes
  • Appearance of coercion may help governments
    introduce unpopular policies

12
What is Transferred?
  • Policy goals, structure and content
  • Policy instruments or administrative techniques
    Institutions
  • Ideology Attitudes Ideas
  • Negative Lessons?
  • Note that policies can be transferred even if
    ideology is different
  • Does it matter if the same policy outcomes are
    caused by different processes?

13
Degrees of Transfer - Rose
  • Complete duplication possible if similar
    starting points (e.g. US states)
  • Adaptation taking different laws/
    administration into account
  • Making a hybrid from borrowing and lending
    countries
  • Synthesis of one or more programmes
  • Broad inspiration
  • Repackaging?

14
Bear in mind
  • Loose boundaries between categories
  • All elements can be contained in one policy area
  • Single transfer or over period of years
  • Note extent of change regardless of transfer.
    Effect of transfer is total minus that which
    would have happened?

15
From Where Are Lessons Drawn?
  • Learning from the past in ones own region, then
    others
  • Lessons likely to be drawn from other regions if
    there are shared policy conditions (particularly
    economic conditions)
  • On geographical grounds (although proximity
    subject to choice and technological advance?)
  • If there is a shared ideology (although remember
    New Zealand and Wales)

16
Attempt of and success of transfer affected by
range of factors
  • If the policy is unique or based on inimitable
    conditions/ organisations
  • Political structures e.g. note assumption of
    federal welfare policy that state/ local levels
    will supplement action
  • Resources to implement
  • Simplicity of policy with clear cause/effect
  • Knowledge gathered of policy and likely outcomes
  • Interdependence (Wales Scotland and fur)
  • When ideology/ values of importer/ exporter
    coincide
  • Note links to rationality, incrementalism and
    implementation studies

17
Policy Transfer and Failure
  • Discussion of implementation and policy failure
    qualifies idea of coercion e.g. with the EU
    there is discretion to implement directives.
    There is power to coerce national governments but
    how far down the line does this extend?
  • Dolowitz and Marsh discuss failure in a different
    sense with 3 (non mutually exclusive) aspects
    (example of CSA). Note the links to rationality
    and implementation

18
  • Uninformed transfer the borrowing country has
    incomplete information on key elements of success
    in lending country (e.g. the length of time to
    phase in policy the role of the courts in
    pressure release and ensuring discretion)
  • Incomplete transfer when those key elements are
    not transferred
  • Inappropriate transfer when not enough
    attention is paid to adaptation and/ or the
    original policy aims of the exporter e.g.
    addressing those in arrears rather than focussing
    those who could afford to pay (to reduce PSBR)

19
Summary of previous lectures
  • Biggest constraint on change is existing policy
    and power relations underpinning policy agreement
  • Policy problems are produced/ framed, not
    selected
  • Policy may be incremental with long periods of
    stability
  • Comprehensive rationality assumption of central
    actor undermined by MLG discussion
  • But potential for short bursts of intense
    policy attention and change.

20
Agenda-setting links to Transfer
  • Important to look at source for new ideas, nut
    these are subject to the same processes as any
    other policy
  • Lessons are not just there they are subject
    to framing when reported (e.g. success of smoking
    ban in Ireland?). (Note relevance of
    Schattschneider here).
  • The focus of lessons (e.g. which countries are
    worthy of the effort?) is subject to competition/
    selection
  • The pressure to learn will depend on the position
    of an issue on the policy agenda

21
Incrementalism links to Transfer
  • Incrementalism focus of learning restricted to
    most similar regions? Other searches unrealistic
    given scope for radical change.
  • Governments learn from own mistakes and make
    small adjustments. Outside searches are
    therefore not automatic
  • Level of path dependence in transfer (e.g. Japan
    studied police in Germany after importing law and
    local government)

22
MLG links
  • Adoption of policy in one level dependent on
    cooperation with another?
  • Does harmonisation take place at central
    government level or sub-sectoral policy community
    level based on expertise?
  • Example of harmonisation of clinical methods
    fostered by clinical links? (Although note role
    of e.g. Nice)
  • Devolution makes measurement of transfer tricky
    potential to vary by policy area and level of
    government

23
Punctuated equilibrium links
  • Lessons from elsewhere may be a powerful tool to
    challenge existing policy monopolies
  • MLG link if case unsuccessful at one level of
    government it can be pursued at higher level and
    then transferred
  • E.g. case for smoking ban in Scotland helped by
    experience of Ireland and elsewhere

24
Issues with transfer literature
  • Can we distinguish these issues from broader
    literature?
  • Definition of transfer/ lesson drawing is so
    broad is it measurable?
  • How is transfer demonstrated?

25
Confusion of rational and voluntary?
  • Dolowitz and Marshs Why Transfer continuum
    conflates 2 discussions of policy change
  • Policy transfer can be entirely voluntary but not
    rational
  • Note example of WFTC
  • Bounded rationality des not necessarily suggest
    coercion
  • Note that DM use it to mean a perceived need to
    e.g. keep up. Maybe this means pressure for
    change and less time to learn?
  • Surely this is different type of coercion than
    exerted by e.g. World Bank?

26
Who is coerced?
  • E.g. imagine 2 advocacy coalitions one
    voluntary approach to tobacco, one public health
  • Public health replaces voluntary as dominant
    coalition and successfully achieves policy change
  • Is the government coerced? Surely depends on
    which coalition key decision-makers were part of?
    Or did they act as a referee selecting policy on
    basis of new evidence?
  • Are we talking about coercion in terms of needing
    to address an issue/ make a decision rather than
    the decision itself?

27
Final note value of transfer?
  • Context for domestic decision-making
  • Challenges temptation to view policy change only
    in domestic context
  • Key question in any policy discussion was
    transfer involved?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com