Transcript Policy transfer - University of South Australia

Policy transfer
‘Every country has problems and each thinks that its problems are
unique...
However, problems that are unique to one country...are abnormal...
...confronted with a common problem, policy makers in cities, regional
governments and nations can learn from how their counterparts
responded’
Rose, R (1991) ‘What is lesson drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11, p 3
Policy transfer
The 'process in which knowledge about policies, administrative
arrangements, institutions etc in one time and/or place is used in the
development of policies, administrative arrangements and institutions in
another time and or place' (from 'exporter' to 'importer' jurisdictions).
(Dolowitz, D and Marsh, D (1996) 'Who learns what from whom: a review of the policy transfer
literature, Political Studies, 343-357)
Lesson drawing
'...sets out the crucial questions that must be asked in order to draw logical and
empirically sound conclusions from observing experience in the past, or in other
places.'
(Rose, R (1993) Lesson Drawing in Public Policy, Chatham House).
Why engage in policy transfer?
Voluntary transfer
•
Dissatisfaction with status quo
whose problem?
which problem?
•
Extraneous factors eg elections
Coercive transfer
Direct
•
One institution forces a policy on another
•
Supra-institutional body forces a policy on another
Indirect
•
Interdependence
•
Technological change
•
International or supra-institutional influence
•
Fear of ‘being left behind’
What is transferred?
•
Policy goals
•
Policy instruments
•
Administrative techniques
•
Institutions
•
Ideas, attitudes, concepts
•
Negative lessons
Degrees of transfer
(Rose (1995))
•
Copying
more or less intact
•
Adaptation
adjusting for contextual differences
•
Hybridisation
combining recognisable elements from
different policies
•
Synthesis
combines elements into a distinctive new whole
•
Inspiration
a new approach, not a single transfer (often
uncritical)
Who transfers policy?
•
Elected members/politicians
•
Non-elected members
•
Political parties
•
Bureaucrats/staff
•
Pressure groups
•
Policy entrepreneurs/experts
•
Supra-national or supra-institutional organisations
Fungibility- what makes it likely to happen?
(From Rose 1995)
Transfer is more likely
•
the fewer the elements of uniqueness
•
the more substitutable are the institutions of programme delivery
•
the greater the equivalence of resources between importers and exporters
•
the simpler the cause and effect structure of a policy
•
the smaller the scale of change
•
the greater the interdependence between policies in different locations
•
the greater the congruity between the values of policymakers and those of the
policy
What makes it likely to happen?
(Dolowitz and Marsh (1996), misquoting Rose (1995))
Transfer is more likely
•
for programmes with single goals than those with multiple gaols
•
the simpler the problem
•
the more direct the relationship is perceived to be between the problem
and the solution (policy)
•
the fewer the perceived side effects of policy
•
the more information agents have about how the policy operates
elsewhere
•
the more easily outcomes can be predicted
Persuasion and argument
Persuasion
(Majone, G (1991) Cross-national sources of Regulatory Policymaking in Europe and the United States,
Journal of Public Policy, 11.1, 79-106)
'Major policy breakthroughs are possible only after public opinion has been
conditioned to accept new ideas and new concepts of the public interest.’
Policy arguments succeed not just because of the evidence adduced, but
because of the persuasive power with which they are argued
- 'government by propaganda', the use of information dispensing ('spin
doctors').
Administrative argument
(Hood and Jackson Administrative Argument 1991)
Advocacy of doctrines [neither theories nor policies] by reference to ‘common
sense’ maxims and examples that ostensibly vindicate the maxims
- 'buzz-words'
Successful persuasion
Hood, C and Jackson, M (1991) Administrative Argument, Dartmouth
•
symmetry: 'constructing a reality symmetrical with the perceived "problem”’
•
use of metaphor to 'tap into or build on shared modes of thinking'
•
ambiguity - the ability to communicate the same idea to different groups in
ways that each finds congenial
•
the use of 'the public good' as justification
•
selectivity in argument (including ignoring contradictory information)
•
suspension of disbelief of opponents.
Reasons for the unexpected emergence
in the late 1980s of the idea of a non-university
sector
'Problems of the solution'
Existing solution no longer working
(overburdening of universities)
New problems of existing solution
(eg graduate unemployment)
Financial constraint making existing solution uncomfortable
'Happy accidents'
OECD 1988 study of alternatives to universities
Key civil servants with international outlook
Ambitious minister
External factors
Austria`s decision to join the EU
EU directive on recognition of qualifications
Issues of policy transfer
Asynchronous transfer - CNAA 1964
FHR 1994
FHS policy not the same as polytechnic policy
non state providers
-
accredits courses before institutions
Differences of scale
Evidence against transfer ignored
Idealised and mistaken model transferred
Wider aims - FHS policy - changing polity
Importance of persuasion of wider publics
Importance of implementation