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 universitiesKey civil servants with international outlookAmbitious minister

External factorsAustria`s decision to join the EU EU directive on recognition of qualifications

Issues of policy transfer

Asynchronous transfer - CNAA 1964FHR 1994

FHS policy not the same as polytechnic policy - non state providers

- accredits courses before institutionsDifferences of scaleEvidence against transfer ignoredIdealised and mistaken model transferredWider aims - FHS policy - changing polityImportance of persuasion of wider publicsImportance of implementation