Between policy failure and policy success: bricolage, experimentalism and translation in policy transfer

2020 ◽  
pp. 71-92
Author(s):  
Diane Stone
Keyword(s):  
Policy Diffusion ◽  
Policy Transfer ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Policy Adoption ◽  
Meso Level ◽  
Selective Learning ◽  
Policy Success ◽  
Policy Failure ◽  
Lesson Drawing

This chapter re-assesses some of the literature on policy transfer and policy diffusion, in light of ideas as to what constitutes failure, partial failure, or limited success. Rather than frame a policy transfer as a failure or success, scholars must recognise transfer (and so failure) as a messy process involving an array of meso-level actors. Two aspects are of particular note. First, the treatment of imperfect transfer as underscored by flawed lesson-drawing is useful as it takes one back to questions about the depth of learning. Second, the chapter highlights two aspects of learning that are often overlooked in mainstream accounts: ‘negative lesson-drawing’ and selective learning. Negative lesson-drawing is a quest to avoid policy failure where policy learning is not synonymous with policy adoption. Instead, policy lessons can help crystallise what ideas and policy paths decision-makers do not wish to follow.

Policy Learning and Policy Failure

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Diffusion ◽  
Policy Transfer ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Meso Level ◽  
Policy Failure ◽  
Limited Success ◽  
Opportunities For Learning ◽  
Policy Failures

First published as a special issue of Policy & Politics, this updated volume explores policy failures and the valuable opportunities for learning that they offer. The book begins with an overview of policy learning and policy failure. The links between the two appear obvious, yet there are very few studies that address how one can learn from failure, learn to limit failure, and fail to learn. The book attempts to bring the two together. In doing so, it explores how dysfunctional forms of policy learning impact policy failure at the meso-level. The book expands on this by demonstrating how different learning processes generated by actors at the meso-level mediate the extent to which policy transfer is a success or failure. It re-assesses some of the literature on policy transfer and policy diffusion, in light of ideas as to what constitutes failure, partial failure, or limited success. This is followed by an examination of situations in which the incentives of partisanship can encourage a government to actively seek to exacerbate an existing policy failure rather than to repair it. The book studies the connections between repeated assessments of policy failure and subsequent opportunities for system-wide policy learning and reform. Finally, it introduces the idea of ‘policy myopia’ as a pressing source of failure in policy making and explores the possibility of developing policies that learn to help mitigate its impacts.

scholarly journals Intra-crisis learning and prospective policy transfer in the COVID-19 pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (9/10) ◽  
pp. 877-892 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Powell ◽  
Sophie King–Hill
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Policy Transfer ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Policy Performance ◽  
Policy Success ◽  
The Past ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Lesson Drawing

PurposeThis article brings together the literatures on policy learning and lesson drawing with the intra-crisis learning literature in order to assess “learning lessons” in the COVID-19 pandemic.Design/methodology/approachIt carries out a structured review of articles that seek to provide lessons for the pandemic. It examines these articles using interpretative content analysis to apply the criteria of prospective policy transfer to the material.FindingsApplication of the criteria of prospective policy transfer suggests that lesson drawing was fairly limited. It is often not fully clear why nations were selected. Many articles were brief and provided limited detail, meaning that there was little depth on issues such as problems and goals and on policy performance or policy success or failure. There was limited discussion of transferability of lessons, and few clear lessons could be drawn. Finally, the extent to which it was possible to learn lessons in a “non-routine” or “less routine” crisis, under conditions of threat, uncertainty and urgency was generally not discussed.Practical implicationsThe criteria within the framework of prospective policy transfer provide a template for policy makers to assess lessons.Originality/valueThis article indicates the problems of attempting to draw lessons from the past or from other nations to an unprecedented crisis, where decision-making is characterized by elements of threat, urgency and uncertainty.

Pathologies of policy learning: what are they and how do they contribute to policy failure?1

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-48
Author(s):  
Claire A. Dunlop
Keyword(s):  
Bovine Tuberculosis ◽  
Epistemic Community ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Learning Theories ◽  
Meso Level ◽  
Policy Failure ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Competing Interest ◽  
Value Of Learning

This chapter explores how dysfunctional forms of policy learning impact policy failure at the meso-level. Using the long-running policy failure of the management of bovine tuberculosis (BTB) in England, analysis focuses on negative lessons generated by the interactions of an epistemic community of scientific experts and civil servants charged with balancing the competing interest actors to craft a workable policy. The chapter then outlines the capacity challenges faced by decision-makers engaged in epistemic learning and the ways in which advisory relationships can go wrong and learning can degenerate. These degenerations are understood as rooted in failures in government's organisational capacities. Empirically, the analysis of BTB policy in England finds that epistemic learning degenerated as a result of weaknesses in the government's analytical and communicative capacities. The chapter concludes with some reflections on the value of learning theories as a conceptual lens for policy failure.

Policy Learning, Policy Failure, and the Mitigation of Policy Risks: Re-Thinking the Lessons of Policy Success and Failure

2021 ◽  
pp. 009539972110653
Author(s):  
Ching Leong ◽  
Michael Howlett
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Public Value ◽  
Policy Success ◽  
Policy Failure ◽  
Comparative Case Studies ◽  
Policy Problems ◽  
Policy Failures ◽  
Lesson Drawing

Policy failures are often assumed to be unintentional and anomalous events about which well-intentioned governments can learn why they occurred and how they can be corrected. These assumptions color many of the results from contemporary studies of policy learning which remain optimistic that ongoing policy problems can be resolved through technical learning and lesson drawing from comparative case studies. Government intentions may not be solely oriented toward the creation of public value and publics may not abide by government wishes, however, and studies of policy learning need to take these “darksides” of policy-making more seriously if the risks of policy failure are to be mitigated.

Compulsory Arbitration and the Australasian Model of State Development: Policy Transfer, Learning, and Innovation

2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaun Goldfinch ◽  
Philippa Mein Smith
Keyword(s):  
Development Policy ◽  
Political System ◽  
Policy Transfer ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Policy Success ◽  
Compulsory Arbitration ◽  
New Information ◽  
Systems Learning

Policymakers transfer knowledge about policies, ideas, and institutions between political systems, learning from one another in a process of policy learning; lesson drawing; diffusion; or policy transfer. As Dolowitz and Marsh observe: “While terminology and focus often vary … studies are concerned with the process by which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions, and ideas in one political system (past or present) are used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political system.” The literature on policy transfer has mainly addressed how policymakers glean potential lessons and use those experiences to devise reforms. It asks questions about why policy transfer occurs; who was involved; what was transferred; from where; the extent of the transfer; and how the process of transfer is “related to policy ‘success’ or ‘failure.’” Greener distinguishes this from policy learning, where policymakers make deliberate adjustments in response to experience or new information, and learning is evident when policy changes as a result of this process. Some scholars see policy transfer as a subset of policy learning, since these are often part of the same procedure. Oliver and Pemberton advance a model, for example, of how ideas are absorbed through learning, in which bureaucratic battles ensue to institutionalize a new policy, and reformers' success in securing support can be critical in determining the extent of policy learning and transfer.

Lobbying, learning and policy reinvention: an examination of the American States’ drunk driving laws

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinhai Yu ◽  
Edward T. Jennings ◽  
J. S. Butler
Keyword(s):  
Drunk Driving ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Policy Adoption ◽  
Alternative Source ◽  
Policy Success ◽  
American States ◽  
Conditional Effects ◽  
Mothers Against Drunk Driving ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Source Of Information

AbstractScholars have consistently shown that learning of successful policies in other states leads to higher likelihood of policy adoption. This study extends this finding two ways. First, policy learning can also lead to more comprehensive adoption of successful policies. Second, the effect of policy learning on policy comprehensiveness is conditional on lobbying by interest groups, an alternative source of information about policy success. To test these hypotheses, we conduct a directed dyad-year analysis using a dataset on American state drunk driving regulations from 1983 to 2000. The results show that more comprehensive policy adoption by states is positively related to policy success in other states when lobbying by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is relatively low. Moreover, lobbying by MADD increases policy comprehensiveness when policy success is relatively low. This study advances the literature by examining the conditional effects of lobbying on the relationship between policy learning and policy reinvention.

scholarly journals The Limitations of ‘Policy Transfer’ and ‘Lesson Drawing’ for Public Policy Research

2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver James ◽  
Martin Lodge
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Policy Transfer ◽  
Policy Success ◽  
Transfer Processes ◽  
Common Framework ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Lesson Drawing

The concepts of ‘lesson drawing’ and ‘policy transfer’ have become increasingly influential ways of understanding public policy, especially in the UK. However, the main proponents of the concepts, Rose for ‘lesson drawing’ and Dolowitz and Marsh for ‘policy transfer’, have difficulty in providing convincing answers to three questions that are important for them and those engaged in similar studies. First, can they be defined as distinctive forms of policy-making separate from other, more conventional, forms? ‘Lesson drawing’ is very similar to conventional accounts of ‘rational’ policy-making and ‘policy transfer’ is very difficult to define distinctly from many other forms of policy-making. Second, why does ‘lesson drawing’ and ‘policy transfer’ occur rather than some other form of policy-making? The proponents of ‘policy transfer’ put a set of diverse and conflicting theories under a common framework, obscuring differences between them. Third, what are the effects of ‘lesson drawing’ and ‘policy transfer’ on policy-making and how do they compare to other processes? Whilst the effect of more ‘lesson drawing’ seems to be more ‘rational’ policy-making, the effect of ‘policy transfer’ on policy ‘success’ and ‘failure’ is less clear. Dolowitz and Marsh redescribe aspects of ‘failure’ as different forms of ‘transfer’ rather than giving independent reasons for outcomes based on features of transfer processes. Overall, particularly in the case of ‘policy transfer’, researchers may be better off selecting from a range of alternative approaches than limiting themselves to these conceptual frameworks.

scholarly journals Policy success/policy failure: A framework for understanding policy choices

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Cathal FitzGerald ◽  
Eoin O’Malley ◽  
Deiric Ó Broin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Potential Interaction ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Good Decision ◽  
Policy Success ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Policy Failure ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
To Come

AbstractSome policies fail to achieve their goals and some succeed. More often than not, it is unclear whether a policy has been a success or a failure, sometimes because the goal was not clear, or because there were a multitude of goals. In this introduction to this special issue we discuss what we mean by policy success and failure, and assume that policy success or failure is ultimately the result of the decision-making process: policy success results from good policies, which tend to come from good decisions, which are in turn the result of a good decision-making process. We then set out a framework for understanding the conditions under which good and bad decisions are made. Built upon factors highlighted in a broad literature, we argue that a potential interaction of institutions, interests and ideology creates incentives for certain outcomes, and leads to certain information being gathered or prioritised when it is being processed. This can bias decision-makers to choose a certain course of action that may be suboptimal, or in other cases there is an absence of bias, creating the possibility for making successful policy choices.

22. The Impact of Public Policies

2020 ◽  
pp. 395-416
Author(s):  
Jørgen Goul Andersen
Keyword(s):  
Path Dependence ◽  
Policy Diffusion ◽  
Policy Transfer ◽  
Policy Learning ◽  
Welfare Regimes ◽  
Policy Feedback ◽  
Welfare Policies ◽  
Institutional Complementarity ◽  
Economic Perspectives ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the effects of public policy. It first considers economic paradigms and approaches to welfare and documents the overriding historical changes in approaches to the economy, from Keynesian ideas of macro-economic steering to more market-oriented economic perspectives. It then explores the idea of institutional complementarity, as expressed in the typologies of welfare regimes, varieties of capitalism, and flexicurity. It also looks at some of the empirical analyses of the effects of welfare policies and the tension between welfare and economic efficiency. Finally, it looks at policy feedback, path dependence, policy learning, social learning, policy transfer and policy diffusion, and policy convergence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document