Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 275–294 | Cite as

The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change

  • Colin J. Bennett
  • Michael Howlett
Article

Abstract

Several different explanations of policy change based on notions of learning have emerged in the policy literature to challenge conventional conflict-oriented theories. These include notions of ‘political-learning’ developed by Heclo, ‘policy-oriented learning’ developed by Sabatier, ‘lesson-drawing’ analyzed by Rose, ‘social learning’ discussed by Hall and ‘government learning’ identified by Etheredge. These different concepts identify different actors and different effects with each different type of learning. Some elements of these theories are compatible, while others are not. This article examines each approach in terms of who learns, what they learn, and the effects of learning on subsequent policies. The conclusion is that three distinct types of learning have often been incorrectly juxtaposed. Certain conceptual, theoretical and methodological difficulties attend any attempt to attribute policy change to policy learning, but this does not detract from the important reorientation of policy analysis that this approach represents.

Keywords

Economic Policy Policy Change Social Learning Distinct Type Policy Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, Charles W. (1979). ‘The place of principles in policy analysis,’ American Political Science Review 73: 711–723.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. and D. Schon (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, Colin and Michael Howlett (1991). ‘When states learn do they change? American lessons, Canadian learning and the conceptualization of policy change.’ A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, Colin J. (1991). ‘What is policy convergence and what causes it?’ British Journal of Political Science 21: 215–234.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, Colin J. (1992a). ‘The international regulation of personal data: From epistemic community to policy sector.’ A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, Colin J. (1992b). Regulating Privacy: Data Protection and Public Policy in Europe and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Castles, Francis G. (1990). ‘The dynamics of policy change: What happened to the English-speaking nations in the 1980s’ European Journal of Political Research 18: 491–513.Google Scholar
  8. Dexter, Lewis (1973). Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Etheredge, Lloyd M. and James Short (1983). ‘Thinking about government learning,’ Journal of Management Studies 20: 41–58.Google Scholar
  10. Etheredge, Lloyd S. (1981). ‘Government learning: An overview,’ in S. L. Long, ed., The Handbook of Political Behavior, Vol 2. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, P. B., D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol, eds. (1988). Bringing the State Back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haas, Ernst B. (1990). When Knowledge is Power: Three Models of Change in International Organizations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Haas, Peter M. (1992). ‘Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination,’ International Organization 46: 1–36.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, Peter A. (1988). ‘Policy paradigms, social learning and the state,’ a paper presented to the International Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, Peter A. (1989). ‘Conclusion: The political power of economic ideas,’ in P. A. Hall, ed., The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism Across Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 361–392.Google Scholar
  16. Heclo, Hugh (1974). Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heclo, Hugh (1978). ‘Issue networks and the executive establishment,’ in A. King, ed., The New American Political System. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 87–124.Google Scholar
  18. Heintz, H. Theodore and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (1988). ‘Advocacy coalitions and the practice of policy analysis,’ Policy Sciences 21: 263–277.Google Scholar
  19. Hernes, Gudmund (1976). ‘Structural change in social processes,’ American Journal of Sociology 82: 513–547.Google Scholar
  20. Hogwood, Brian W. and B. Guy Peters (1983). Policy Dynamics. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.Google Scholar
  21. Holzner, Burkhart and John H. Marx (1979). Knowledge Application: The Knowledge System in Society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  22. Imershein, Allen W. (1977). ‘Organizational change as a paradigm shift,’ The Sociological Quarterly 18: 33–43.Google Scholar
  23. Jenson, Jane (1989). ‘Paradigms and political discourse: Protective legislation in France and the United States before 1914,’ Canadian Journal of Political Science 22: 235–258.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lindblom, Charles E. and D. K. Cohen (1979). Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lindquist, Evert A. (1990). ‘Learning and change in policy communities: A research agenda for the literature.’ A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  27. Lynn, L., ed. (1978). Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell, Timothy (1991). ‘The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics’ American Political Science Review 85: 79–96.Google Scholar
  29. Moore, Mark H. (1988). ‘What sorts of ideas become public ideas?’ in R. B. Reich, ed., The Power of Public Ideas, Cambridge: Ballinger, pp. 55–83.Google Scholar
  30. Nordlinger, Eric (1981). On the Autonomy of the Democratic State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Polsby, Nelson W. (1984). Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy Initiation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rose, Richard (1988). ‘Comparative policy analysis: The program approach,’ in M. Dogan, ed., Comparing Pluralist Democracies, Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rose, Richard (1991). ‘What is lesson-drawing.’ Journal of Public Policy 11: 3–30.Google Scholar
  34. Ruggie, John Gerard (1975). ‘International responses to technology: Concepts and trends,’ International Organization 29: 557–584.Google Scholar
  35. Sabatier, Paul (1978). ‘The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies,’ Administrative Sciences Quarterly 6: 386–411.Google Scholar
  36. Sabatier, Paul (1987). ‘Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change,’ Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8: 649–692.Google Scholar
  37. Sabatier, Paul A. (1988). ‘An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein,’ Policy Sciences 21: 129–168.Google Scholar
  38. Sartori, Giovanni (1968). ‘Concept misformation in comparative politics,’ American Political Science Review 64: 1033–1053.Google Scholar
  39. Shrivastava, Paul (1983). ‘A typology of organizational learning systems.’ Journal of Management Studies 20: 7–28.Google Scholar
  40. Walker, Jack L. (1974). ‘The diffusion of knowledge and policy change: Toward a theory of agenda-setting.’ A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  41. Weiss, Carol (1977a). ‘Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research.’ Policy Analysis 3: 531–545.Google Scholar
  42. Weiss, Carol (1977b). Using Social Research in Public Policy-Making. Lexington: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  43. Wilks, Stephen and Maurice Wright (1987). ‘Conclusion: Comparing government-industry relations: States, sectors, and networks,’ in S. Wilks and M. Wright, eds. Comparative Government-Industry Relations: Western Europe, the United States, and Japan. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 274–313.Google Scholar
  44. Wright, Maurice (1988). ‘Policy community, policy network and comparative industrial policies,’ Political Studies 36: 593–612.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin J. Bennett
    • 1
  • Michael Howlett
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations