Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 227–247 | Cite as

Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate

  • Andrew Jordan
  • Elah Matt
Article

Abstract

Policy feedback is a widely used concept, but many who use it only focus on the positive and/or unintentional feedback effects of certain types of policy. The literature as a whole is therefore poorly equipped to make sense of the negative policy feedbacks that often appear in more regulatory areas such as climate change, where target groups are put under pressure to shoulder concentrated costs. Advocates of the ‘new’ policy design have an opportunity to address this gap by exploring how policy makers approach the design of policies that intentionally generate positive policy feedbacks and/or are resilient to negative ones. This paper contributes to that effort by identifying the conditions under which specific instrument designs are likely to have opportunity enhancing and/or constraining effects. It relates these expectations to a design situation where positive feedback seemed unlikely, and hence, the challenge of designing locked-in policies was correspondingly greater. It concludes by drawing on the findings of this exploratory case to investigate what the ‘new’ policy design can do better to explicate the temporal aspects of design.

Keywords

Policy design Policy feedback Policy instruments Path dependence Climate change 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to four referees who kindly provided detailed comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We are of course wholly responsible for any remaining errors and omissions. Andrew acknowledges the support of the Leverhulme Trust (Grant No. F00204AR) and the COST funded Action - INOGOV (No. IS1309).  Andrew and Elah are grateful to the family of Solly Zuckerman, which kindly supported Elah’s PhD work in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA.

References

  1. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bardach, E. (2006). Policy Dynamics. In M. Moran, et al. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 336–366). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F. (2012). Ideas and policy change. Governance, 26(2), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Béland, D. (2010). Reconsidering policy feedback. Administration and Society, 42(5), 568–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bongaerts, J. (1999) Carbon dioxide emissions and the ACEA agreement. European Environmental Law Review, 8(4), 101–104. Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, A. (2012). Policy makes mass politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlson, A., & Fri, R. (2013). Designing a durable energy policy. Daedalus, 142(1), 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daugbjerg, C. (2003). Policy feedback and paradigm shift in EU agricultural policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(3), 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eberlein, B. (2012). Inching towards a common energy policy. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Constructing a policy making state? (pp. 147–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckstein, H. (1975) Case study and theory in political science. In: F. Greenstein, N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (pp. 79–138). Reading: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Eskridge, W., & Firejohn, J. (2001). Super statutes. Duke Law Journal, 50, 1215–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glazer, A., & Rothenberg, L. (2001). Why government succeeds and why it fails. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goodin, R. (1996). Institutions and their design. In R. Goodin (Ed.), The theory of institutional design (pp. 1–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunningham, N., & Grabosky, P. (1998). Smart regulation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hacker, J. (2002). The divided welfare state. Yale: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haigh, N. (2009). Manual of environmental policy. Leeds: Maney Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Hovi, J., et al. (2009). Implementing long term climate policy. Global Environmental Politics, 9(3), 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design. Policy Sciences (in press). Google Scholar
  20. Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in policy research. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howlett, M., & Lejano, R. (2013). Tales from the crypt: The rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design. Administration and Society, 45(3), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. (1990). Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes. Journal of Public Policy, 10(1), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs, A. (2010). Policy making as political constraint. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change (pp. 94–131). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs, A. (2011). Governing for the long term. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs, A., & Weaver, K. (2012). Negative feedback, policy coalitions. Mimeo: And Policy Change.Google Scholar
  26. Jenkins, J., & Patashnik, E. (Eds.). (2012). Living legislation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jervis, R. (1997). System effects. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jordan, A. J., Bauer, M., & Green-Pedersen, C. (2013). Policy dismantling. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(5), 795–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jordan, A. J., Benson, D., Wurzel, R., et al. (2012). Environmental policy. In J. J. Richardson (Ed.), Constructing a policy state? (pp. 104–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jordan, A. J., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., et al. (Eds.). (2010). Climate change policy in the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., & Zito, A. (2005). The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective. Political Studies, 53(3), 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kay, A. (2005). A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration, 83(3), 553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keating, D. (2013a). Member states assess German damage to institutional trust. European Voice, 17 October, p. 4–5.Google Scholar
  34. Keating, D. (2013b). Emissions trading in crisis after MEPs reject remedy. European Voice, 18–24 April, p. 1.Google Scholar
  35. Keay-Bright, S. (2000). A critical analysis of the voluntary fuel economy agreement. Brussels: EEB.Google Scholar
  36. Kemp, R., & Pontoglio, S. (2011). The innovation effects of new environmental policy instruments. Ecological Economics, 72, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lazarus, R. (2009). Super-wicked problems and climate change. Cornell Law Review, 94, 1153–1233.Google Scholar
  38. Levin, K., et al. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems. Policy Sciences, 45, 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matt, E. (2012) The political economy of EU environmental governance. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich.Google Scholar
  40. May, P., & Jochim, A. (2013). Policy regime perspectives. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meadowcroft, J. (2011). What about the politics? Policy Sciences, 42, 324–340.Google Scholar
  42. Mettler, S. (2011). The submerged state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mettler, S., & Soss, J. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship. Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oberthur, S., & Ott, H. (1999). The Koto protocol. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oosterhuis, F. (Ed) (2006). Innovation dynamics induced by environmental policy, IVM report E-07/05, November 2006, IVM, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  46. Orren, K., & Skowronek, S. (2002). The study of American Political Development. In: I. Katznelson, H. Milner (Eds.), Political science (pp. 722–754). New York: WW Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  47. Parson, E., & Karwat, D. (2011). Sequential climate change policy. WIRES Climate Change, 2, 744–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patashnik, P. (2008). Reforms at risk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Patashnik, E., & Zelizer, J. (2010) When policy does not remake politics. In Paper presented at the Republic of Statutes Conference, Yale Law School, 10–11 December 2010.Google Scholar
  50. Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & King, D. (2005). The politics of path dependency. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1275–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause. World Politics, 45, 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the welfare state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pierson, P. (2000). The limits of design. Governance, 13(4), 475–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Pierson, P. (2005). Public policies as institutions. In I. Shapiro, et al. (Eds.), Rethinking political institutions (pp. 114–131). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Pierson, P. (2006). Public policies as institutions. In S. Shapiro, S. Skowronek, & D. Galvin (Eds.), Rethinking political institutions (pp. 114–134). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. In: I. Katznelson, H. Milner (Eds.), Political science: the state of the discipline (pp. 693–721). New York: WW Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  58. Rennings, K., Brockman, K.-L., & Bergman, H. (1997). Voluntary agreements in environmental protection (pp. 97–104). No: ZEW Discussion Papers.Google Scholar
  59. Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In: S. Rayner, E. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change, Vol. II (pp. 327–367). Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy-coalition framework. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Bounder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  61. Salamon, L. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action. In L. Salamon (Ed.), Tools of government (pp. 1–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Schneider, A., Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Kansas: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  63. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting soldiers and mothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Skodvin, T., et al. (2010). Target group influence and political feasibility. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 854–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Soss, J., & Schram, S. (2007). A public transformed? American Political Science Review, 101(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. ten Brink, P. (2010). Mitigating CO2 emissions from cars in the EU. In S. Oberthür & M. Pallemaerts (Eds.), The new climate policies of the EU (pp. 179–210). Brussels: VUB Press.Google Scholar
  68. Thelen, K. (2003). How institutionalism evolves. In J. Mahoney & D. Reuschemeyer (Eds.), Historical institutionalism in comparative politics (pp. 208–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. van Renssen, S. (2011). A biofuel conundrum. Nature Climate Change, 1, 389–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weaver, R. K. (2010). Paths and forks, or chutes and ladders? Journal of Public Policy, 30(2), 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weaver, R. K., & Rockman, B. (1993). Do institutions matter?. Washington: The Brooking Institute.Google Scholar
  72. Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation. In J. Q. Wilson (Ed.), The politics of regulation (pp. 357–394). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  73. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  74. Wurzel, R. K. W. (2002). Environmental policy making in Britain, Germany and the EU. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wurzel, R., Zito, A., & Jordan, A. (2013). Environmental governance in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental SciencesUEANorwichUK

Personalised recommendations