Policy Sciences

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 343–363 | Cite as

The temporal dimension of knowledge and the limits of policy appraisal: biofuels policy in the UK

Article

Abstract

What depth of learning can policy appraisal stimulate? How we can account for the survival policies that are known to pose significant countervailing risks? While heralded as a panacea to the inherent ambiguity of the political world, the proposition pursued is that policy appraisal processes intended to help decision-makers learn may actually be counterproductive. Rather than simulating policy-oriented learning, appraisals may reduce policy actors’ capacity to think clearly about the policy at hand. By encouraging a variety of epistemic inputs from a plurality of sources and shoehorning knowledge development into a specified timeframe, policy appraisal may leave decision-makers overloaded with conflicting information and evidence which dates rapidly. In such circumstances, they to fall back on institutionalised ways of thinking even when confronted with evidence of significant mismatches between policy objectives and the consequences of the planned course of action. Here learning is ‘single-loop’ rather than ‘double-loop’—focussed on adjustments in policy strategy rather than re-thinking the underlying policy goals. Using insights into new institutional economics, the paper explores how the results of policy appraisals in technically complex issues are mediated by institutionalised ‘rules of the game’ which feed back positively around initial policy frames and early interpretations of what constitutes policy success. Empirical evidence from UK biofuels policy appraisal confirms the usefulness of accounts that attend to the temporal tensions that exist between policy and knowledge development. Adopting an institutional approach that emphasises path dependence does not however preclude the possibility that the depth of decision-makers’ learning might change. Rather, the biofuels case suggests that moves towards deeper learning may be affected by reviews of appraisal evidence led by actors beyond immediate organizational context with Chief Scientific Advisers within government emerging as potentially powerful catalysts in this acquisition of learning capabilities.

Keywords

Biofuels Chief Scientific Advisers Learning New institutional economics Policy appraisal Positive feedback Time 

References

  1. Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. (1997). Argyris and Schön’s theory on congruence and learning. Available at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/argyris.html accessed 21st January 2009.
  3. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. Arthur, B. W. (1988). Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics. In P. Anderson, K. J. Arrow, & D. Pines (Eds.), The economy as an evolving complex system. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity (Vol. 5). Redwood City, CA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Arthur, B. W. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  8. BBC. (2008a). Radio 4 today programme interview with Professor Bob Watson.Google Scholar
  9. BBC. (2008b). Radio 4 today programme interview with Professor Bob Watson.Google Scholar
  10. Berman, S. (2001). Ideas, norms and culture in political analysis. Comparative Politics, 33(2), 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biopact. (2007). A quick look at fourth generation biofuels. October 8, http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/10/quick-look-at-fourth-generation.html accessed 24th August 2009.
  12. Bomb, C. et al., (2007). Biofuels for transport in Europe: Lessons from Germany and the UK. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2256–2267.Google Scholar
  13. Cheung, S. N. S. (1996). Roofs or stars: The stated intents and actual effects of rent controls. In L. J. Alston, T. Eggertsson, & D. C. North (Eds.), Empirical studies in institutional change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Commission of the European Union (CEU). (2008). On the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. COM(2008)19final, 23 January, Brussels.Google Scholar
  15. Crozier, M. (1962). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. David, P. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332–337.Google Scholar
  17. Denzau, A. D., & North, D. C. (1994). Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 47(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dft. (2004). Biofuels consultation: Summary of responses July. London: DfT.Google Scholar
  19. Dft. (2007). Summary of responses to the consultation on the RTFO July. London: DfT.Google Scholar
  20. Dunlop, C. A. (2007). Up and down the pecking order, what matters and when in issue definition: The case of rbST in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunlop, C. A. (2009). Policy transfer as learning—capturing variation in what decision-makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy Studies, 30(3), 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunlop, C. A., & James, O. (2007). Principal-agent modelling and learning: The European Commission, experts and agricultural hormone growth promoters. Public Policy and Administration, 22(4), 403–422.Google Scholar
  23. E4tech, ECCM, Imperial College. (2005). Feasibility study on the RTFO June. London: E4tech.Google Scholar
  24. Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1999). Learning, trust and organizational change. In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo, & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning and the learning organization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Environmental Audit Committee (EAC). (2008). Are biofuels sustainable? HC76-1 Jan 21. London: Stationery Office Ltd.Google Scholar
  26. Etheridge, L. S. (1981). Government learning: An overview. In S. Long (Ed.), The handbook of political behaviour (Vol. 2). Plenum Press: New York. NY.Google Scholar
  27. Etheridge, L. S. (1985). Can governments learn?. New York, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  28. European Environmental Bureau. (2002). Biofuels not as green as they should be. Brussels.Google Scholar
  29. Genschel, P. (1997). How fragmentation can improve co-ordination: Setting standards in international telecommunications. Organization Studies, 18(4), 603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. George, A. L. (1997). From groupthink to contextual process analysis. In P. d’Hart, E. Stern, & B. Sundelius (Eds.), Beyond groupthink. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Graham, J. D., & Weiner, J. (1995). Risk versus risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gunderson, L., & Light, S. S. (2006). Adaptive management and adaptive governance. Policy Sciences, 39(4), 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haas, E. B. (1990). When knowledge is power. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Haas, P. M. (2004). When does truth listen to power? Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harvey, F. (2009). Second generation biofuels—still five years away? Financial Times, May 29.Google Scholar
  36. Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in organisations. Human Relations, 51(7), 847–871.Google Scholar
  37. Hertin, J., Turnpenny, J., Jordan, A., Nilsson, M., Russel, D., & Nykvist, B. (2009). Rationalising the policy mess? Ex ante policy assessment and the utilization of knowledge in the policy process. Environment and Planning A, 21(5), 1185–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kelly, R. (2008). Biofuels statement. Hansard. 2007/08, July 7: 1169-1171 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080707/debtext/80707-0006.htm accessed 10th December 2008.
  39. Kreuger, A. O. (1996). The political economy of controls: American sugar. In L. J. Alston, T. Eggertsson, & D. C. North (Eds.), Empirical studies in institutional change. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Levy, J. S. (1994). Learning in foreign policy: Sweeping a conceptual minefield. International Organization, 48(2), 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Litfin, K. T. (1994). Ozone discourses. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  46. March, J. Q., & Simon, H. A. (1957). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Marsh, D., & McConnell, A. (2008). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Refereed paper delivered at Australian political studies association conference, 6–9 July 2008, Hilton Hotel, Brisbane, Australia http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/apsa2008/Refereed-papers/Marsh%20and%20McConnell.pdf accessed April 21st 2009.
  48. Mocker, D. W., & Spear, G. E. (1982). Lifelong learning: Formal, nonformal, informal, and self-directed. Information series no. 241. Columbus, OH: ERIC.Google Scholar
  49. Nilsson, M., Jordan, A., Turnpenny, J., Hertin, J., Nykvist, B., & Russel, D. (2008). The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making. Policy Sciences, 41, 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. North, D. C. (1994). Economic-performance through time. American Economic Review, 84, 359–368.Google Scholar
  52. Olson, M. (1981). Rise and decline of nations. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Owens, S., Rayner, T., & Bina, O. (2004). New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice and research. Environment and Planning A, 36, 1943–1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Parsons, W. (2004). Not just steering but weaving: Relevant knowledge and the craft of building policy capacity. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pierson, P. (1996). The path to European integration: A historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), 123–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. In I. Katznelson & H. V. Milner (Eds.), Political science: State of discipline. New York, NY; Washington, D.C: Norton and American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  59. Radaelli, C. M. (2004). The diffusion of regulatory impact analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 723–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Radaelli, C. M. (2005). Diffusion without convergence: How political context shapes the adoption of regulatory impact assessment. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 924–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Radaelli, C. M. (2007). Does regulatory impact assessment make institutions think? Paper presented at ‘Governing the European Union: Policy instruments in a multi-level polity’ seminar, Paris, 21–22 June.Google Scholar
  62. Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA). (2008). Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. East Sussex: RFA.Google Scholar
  63. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technical change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), S71–S102.Google Scholar
  65. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scharpf, F. (1997). Games real actors play. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  69. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., et al. (2008). Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319(5867), 1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simon, H. (1957). Models of man. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  71. Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 14, 231–266.Google Scholar
  72. Smith, M. K. (2001). Chris Argyris: Theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning. The encyclopedia of informal education http://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm?page=biography&ranking=18 accessed 21st November 2008.
  73. Thompson, G., Joseph, S., Juniper, T., Napier, R., & Wynne, G. (2004). Brown should stand firm on rising fuel prices. The Guardian June 4, Letters.Google Scholar
  74. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M., Russel, D., Jordan, A., Hertin, J., & Nykvist, B. (2008). Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51, 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Turnpenny, J., Radaelli, C. M., Jordan, A., & Jacob, K. (2009). The policy and politics of policy appraisal: Emerging trends and new directions. Journal of Public Policy, 16(4), 640–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Weiss, C. (1987). Where politics and evaluation research meet. In D. J. Palumbo (Ed.), The politics of program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Wildavsky, A. (1988). Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  80. Williamson, O. E. (1993). Transaction cost economics and organization theory. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(1), 107–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations