New Directions in the Study of Policy Transfer

Mark Evans, Mark Evans

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317965473
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Subtopic: Politik

Policy transfer analysis seeks to make sense of the cross-cultural transfer of knowledge about institutions, policies or delivery systems in an era of globalization. The purpose of this volume is to evaluate how useful policy transfer analysis is as a descriptive, explanatory and prescriptive theory of policy change. It provides both a response to its critics and it presents a variety of new directions for studying processes of policy transfer. The chapters proceed from an underlying assumption about the field of enquiry; that policy transfer analysis alone cannot provide a general explanatory theory of policy change but when combined with other approaches an empirically grounded account of policy change can be developed. Hence each of the chapters adopt a methodological pluralism in which complementary theories of policy development are combined in order to develop a theory of policy change that accounts for the role of particular agents of policy transfer in forging policy change. This is an important contribution to our understanding of the impact of globalization on domestic policy formulation.

This book was previously published as a special issue of Policy Studies.

Policy transfer in critical perspective

Mark Evans

Australia–New Zealand School of Government, Institute of Governance, University of Canberra, Australia

The world of public policy is becoming increasingly small due to dramatic changes in global communications, political and economic institutional structures, and to nation states themselves. This article evaluates the implications of these changes and challenges for both the study and the practice of policy transfer and provides an understanding of the relationship between systemic globalizing forces and the increasing scope and intensity of policy transfer activity. It provides: an explanation of policy transfer as a process of organizational learning; an insight into how and why such processes are studied by policy scientists; and an evaluation of its use by policy practitioners. The article argues that the limits of policy transfer analysis as a descriptive, explanatory and prescriptive theory of policy change can be addressed through the development of a multi-level ‘action based’ approach to the study of policy transfer.

Introduction

This article provides an assessment of the development and current use of the concept of policy transfer as it has evolved in the study of public policy. Its purpose is to evaluate the character of this interdisciplinary approach to cross-national policy development and to assess its strengths, weaknesses and potential theoretical and methodological development. It therefore considers: the domestic and international circumstances that are likely to bring about policy transfer; the key approaches to the study of policy transfer that have emerged over the past decade; and, the scope and dimensions of the policy transfer process. The article is organised around a consideration of four central research questions. What is studied when policy transfer is studied? How is policy transfer studied? Why do public organisations engage in policy transfer? In what ways can the policy transfer approach be improved?

What is studied when policy transfer is studied?

Policy transfer analysis is a theory of policy development that seeks to make sense of a process or set of processes in which knowledge about institutions, policies or delivery systems at one sector or level of governance is used in the development of institutions, policies or delivery systems at another sector or level of governance. Different forms of policy transfer such as bandwagoning (Ikenberry 1990), convergence (Bennett 1991), diffusion (Majone 1991), emulation (Howlett 2000), policy learning (May 1992), social learning (Hall 1993) and lesson-drawing (Rose 2005) have been identified in a wide ranging literature which has attracted significant academic attention from domestic, comparative and international political scientists.

The contemporary study of policy transfer originates from policy diffusion studies, a sub-set of the comparative politics literature. Research in this area focused on identifying trends in timing, geography and resource similarities in the diffusion of innovations between countries and, in the United States, between states in the federation (see Walker 1969). However, these studies revealed little about the process of transfer apart from its identification of mechanisms of diffusion and focused exclusively on the study of policy transfer between developed countries. The latter preoccupation continues to characterize much of the contemporary literature on policy transfer which has primarily focused on studying voluntary policy transfer between developed countries as a process in which policies implemented elsewhere are examined by rational political actors for their potential utilization within another political system (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000).¹ This article begins by describing the scope of enquiry in policy transfer analysis with regard to agents of policy transfer, forms of policy transfer, processes of policy-oriented learning, obstacles to policy-oriented learning and outputs of policy transfer.

Agents of policy transfer

The study of policy transfer analysis should be restricted to action-oriented intentional learning: that which takes place consciously and results in policy action. This definition locates policy transfer as a potential causal phenomenon: a factor leading to policy convergence. However, this article distinguishes policy transfer from policy convergence in that the latter may occur unintentionally, for example due to harmonizing macroeconomic forces or common processes. The element of intentionality in this definition of policy transfer makes an agent essential to both voluntary and coercive processes. Intentionality may be ascribed to the originating state/institution/actor, to the transferee state/institution/actor, to both or to a third party state/institution/actor. For example, if the agent of a particular transfer is the state which first developed the policy, or a third party state (Country C) seeking to make Country B adopt an approach by Country A, it is likely that there are coercive processes at work. Alternatively, there may be a series of agents at work either simultaneously, or at different points in the process. A necessary but insufficient criteria for identifying policy transfer is therefore to: (1) identify the agent(s) of transfer and the policy belief systems that they advocate; (2) distinguish the resources that they bring to the process of policy-oriented learning; (3) specify the role they play in the transfer; and (4) determine the nature of the transfer that the agent(s) is/are seeking to make. At least eight main categories of agents of transfer can be identified in the literature on policy transfer: politicians; bureaucrats; policy entrepreneurs including think-tanks; knowledge institutions (KIs), academicians and other experts; pressure groups; global financial institutions; international organizations; and supra-national institutions (see Stone 2000b).

Forms of policy transfer

Policy analysts deploy the policy transfer approach as a generic concept that encompasses quite different claims about why public organizations engage in policy learning. Typically, policy transfer analysts refer to three different processes of transfer: voluntary transfer or lesson-drawing, negotiated transfer and direct coercive transfer. The first is a rational, action-oriented approach to dealing with public policy problems that emerge from one or more of the following: the identification of public or professional dissatisfaction with existing policy as a consequence of poor performance; a new policy agenda that is introduced due to a change in government, minister or the management of a public organization; a political strategy aimed at legitimating conclusions that have already been reached; or an attempt by a political manager to upgrade items of the policy agenda to promote political allies and neutralize political enemies.²

The second and third processes of transfer involve varying degrees of coercion and are common in developing countries. Negotiated policy transfer refers to a process in which governments are compelled by, for example, influential donor countries, global financial institutions, supra-national institutions, international organizations or transnational corporations, to introduce policy change in order to secure grants, loans or other forms of inward investment. Although an exchange process does occur, it remains a coercive activity because the recipient country is denied freedom of choice. The political economy of most developing countries throughout the 1980s and 1990s has been characterized by the implementation of SAPs in return for investment from the IMF, or the World Bank. This is a reflection of the pervasiveness of negotiated forms of policy transfer to developing countries.³ Another form of indirect policy transfer can be identified when governments introduce institutional or policy changes due to a fear of falling behind neighbouring countries. For example, Japan’s economic miracle in East Asia proved inspirational to neighbouring countries such as Singapore, South Korea and Malaysia. John Ikenberry (1990, p. 102) terms this process ‘bandwagoning’.

Direct coercive policy transfer occurs when a government is compelled by another government to introduce constitutional, social and political changes against its will and the will of its people. This form of policy transfer was widespread in periods of formal imperialism and its implications can still be seen today in contemporary Mexico, Kenya, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and South Africa, for example. In developed countries, however, policy transfer activity tends to focus on voluntary transfer or lesson-drawing. Negotiated processes of transfer can be identified with regard to majority decision-making in the European Union (see Wincott 1999, Padgett 2003), but such forms of transfer tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

Processes of policy-oriented learning

Four different processes of policy-oriented learning emerge from the process of transfer (Evans 2004b). The first and rarest form of policy-oriented learning is copying where a governmental organization adopts a policy, programme or institution without modification. For example, the former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown’s working family tax credit system is a direct copy of the American earned income tax credit system (Evans 2004a). Second, there is emulation where a governmental organization accepts that a policy, programme or institution overseas provides the best standard for designing a policy, programme or institution at home. For example, US policy once again proved the standard against which English crime control policy was made under New Labour (Tonry 2004). Hybridization is the third and most typical form of policy-oriented learning. This is where a governmental organization combines elements of programmes found in several settings to develop a policy that is culturally sensitive to the needs of the recipient. For example, New Labour’s welfare programme ‘New Deal for Young People’ was a product of lessons drawn from initiatives in Australia (‘Lone Parents and Partners’, ‘Working Nation’ and ‘single gateway/one stop shops’ programmes), Sweden (‘Working Nation’), the Netherlands (‘single gateway/one stop shop’ programmes), Canada (the ‘Making Work Pay’ scheme) and over 50 ‘Welfare to Work’ schemes in the USA. In addition, institutional memory (for example, ‘Job Seekers Allowance’ and ‘Restart’ schemes from 1988 and 1996) was also influential (Evans 2004a). Fourth, there is inspiration where an idea inspires fresh thinking about a policy problem and helps to facilitate policy change (Common 2001). The Guardian newspaper recently reported a meeting between Bernie Ecclestone, the owner of Formula 1 Holdings and officials from the UK’s Department of Health and Great Ormond Street Hospital. The subject of the meeting was to discuss the lessons that could be drawn by Accident and Emergency departments from the organization of rapid pit stops during Formula 1 Grand Prix focusing specifically on Health and Safety policy.

Obstacles to policy-oriented learning

The proof of policy transfer lies in its implementation. In other words, it is not possible to identify the content of a transfer and by implication whether transfer has occurred without adopting an implementation perspective. So what factors can constrain policy transfer and policy-oriented learning? As Figure 1 illustrates, three broad sets of variables have been identified in the British case study literature: ‘cognitive’ obstacles in the pre-decision phase, ‘environmental’ obstacles in the implementation phase and domestic and, increasingly, domestic public opinion. These variables interact in complex and often unexpected ways and inform the process of policy transfer. ‘Cognitive’ obstacles refer to the process by which public policy problems are recognized and defined in the pre-decision phase, the breadth and detail of the search conducted for ideas, the receptivity of existing policy actors and systems to policy alternatives and the complexity of choosing an alternative. The most significant cognitive barriers for agents of policy transfer to overcome at this stage of policy development are normally issues arising from the prevailing organizational culture and the need for effective cultural assimilation of policy alternatives.

Figure 1. Mapping potential obstacles to processes of policy transfer*.

*This is an interactive model in the sense that these sets of variables do not exist in a vacuum; they interact in complex and often unexpected ways.

‘Environmental’ obstacles refer to the absence of effective cognitive and elite mobilization strategies deployed by agents of policy transfer, the need for the development of cohesive policy transfer networks to ensure successful policy-oriented learning, the broader structural constraints (institutional, political, economic and social) that impact and shape the process of lesson-drawing and the normal technical implementation constraints that inhibit or facilitate the process of lesson-drawing (Sabatier 1986). The latter would include: coherent and consistent objectives; the incorporation of an adequate causal theory of policy development; the sensible allocation of financial resources; hierarchical integration within and among implementing organizations; clear decision rules underpinning the operation of implementing agencies; the recruitment of programme officers with adequate skills/training; sufficient technical support; and the use of effective monitoring and evaluation systems including formal access by outsiders.

Outputs from the process of transfer

Using Peter Hall’s (1993) terminology, the outputs from processes of policy transfer can include: first order change in the precise settings of the policy instruments used to attain policy goals (marginal adjustments to the status quo); second order change to the policy instruments themselves such as the development of new institutions and delivery systems; and third order change to the actual goals that guide policy in a particular field (negative ideology, ideas, attitudes and concepts). Of course, negative lessons can be drawn in each form of policy change.

How is policy transfer studied?

The literature on policy transfer analysis may be organized into two discernible schools: one which does not use the label ‘policy transfer’ directly but deals with different aspects of the process using different nomenclature and one which uses the concept directly. This amorphous literature can be organized into five main approaches: process-centred approaches; ideational approaches; practice-based approaches; comparative approaches; and multi-level approaches.

While there is inevitably some overlap between these approaches (for instance, all of them engage in some form of comparison) they are all distinctive with regard to their central focus of inquiry.

Process-centred approaches

Process-centred approaches focus on the process of policy transfer directly in order to explain the voluntary or coercively negotiated importation of ideas, policies or institutions. It argues that policy learning is based largely on the interpersonal interaction between agents of transfer, bureaucrats and politicians within inter-organizational settings. In these settings there exists a pattern of common kinship expressed through culture, rules and values. Hence, an emphasis is placed on analysing the structure of decision-making through which policy transfer takes place and relationships between agents of transfer and their dependencies. These include state and non-state actors who are actively engaged in policy learning such as bureaucrats and think-tanks. Process-centred analysis also tends to be a predominantly inter-state approach that emphasizes the role of state actors as active agents seeking solutions to policy problems rather than the passive agents depicted in pluralist or corporatist decision literatures. Rose (1993, p. 6), for example, deploys the concept of lesson-drawing as a method for learning from past and/or extra organizational experiences, emphasizing the role of the bureaucrat and the programme itself in the process of policy learning.

Rose’s research in the 1990s on lesson-drawing contrib...