Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 427–448 | Cite as

The politics of policy adoption: a saga on the difficulties of enacting policy diffusion or transfer across industrialized countries

  • Patrik Marier
Article

Abstract

While studies of policy diffusion and policy transfer have focused largely on industrialized countries, it is the exact opposite when it comes to pension policies where the focus remains on national elements such as institutions and partisanship. Focusing on a case with a high degree of programmatic similarities, this contribution fills this gap by analyzing the adoptive process in an industrialized country. The empirical analysis involves the transfer and diffusion of the Swedish pension reform in Norway. Norway has a long history of borrowing from Sweden. Following a highly publicized Swedish pension reform embraced by the World Bank, Norwegian policy makers could have easily introduced this reform at home when they embarked into a reform process in the early 2000s. By analyzing core policy instruments of the Swedish pension reform and the agenda-setting and the formulation stages in the policy process in the Norwegian case, this contribution explains why it proves complex and difficult to attribute the outcome of a reform to a diffuser and it argues that more attention is needed on the process behind the adoption of policies from abroad.

Keywords

Policy adoption Policy transfer Diffusion Pension policy Norway Sweden Transnational policy entrepreneurs 

References

  1. Andresen, M. (2006). Pension reform in Norway and Sweden. Nordisk Försäkringstidskrift, 4, 303–311.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, C. J. (1991). How states utilize foreign evidence. Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, C. J. (1997). Understanding ripple effects: the cross-national adoption of policy instruments for bureaucratic accountability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 10(3), 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, C. J., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning. Policy Sciences, 25(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, D., & Gilardi, F. (2006). Taking ‘Galton’s problem’ seriously: Towards a theory of policy diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18(3), 298–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, S. M. (2005). Interdependent and domestic foundations of policy change: The diffusion of pension privatization around the world. International Studies Quarterly, 49, 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, S. M. (2009). Social protection and the market in Latin America: The transformation of security institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cao, X. (2009). Networks of intergovernmental organizations and convergence in domestic economic policies. International Studies Quarterly, 53(4), 1095–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, J. (1985). Policy diffusion and program scope: Research directions. Publius, 15(4), 61–70.Google Scholar
  12. Coman, E. E. (2011). Notionally defined contributions or private accounts in Eastern Europe: A reconsideration of a consecrated argument on pension reform. Comparative Political Studies, 44(7), 884–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44, 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eckstein, H. (1975). Case study and theory in political science. In F. Greenstein & N. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 7, pp. 79–137). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Elkins, Z., & Simmons, B. (2005). On waves, clusters, and diffusion: A conceptual framework. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ervik, R. (2005). The Battle of future pensions: Global accounting tools, international organizations and pension reforms. Global Social Policy, 5(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ervik, R. (2009). Policy actors, ideas and power: EU and OECD pension policy recommendations and national policies in Norway and the UK. In R. Ervik, N. Kildal, & E. Nilssen (Eds.), The role of international organizations in social policy: Ideas, actors and impact (pp. 138–164). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ervik, R., & Lindén, T. S. (2015). The Shark Jaw and the Elevator: Arguing the case for the necessity, harmlessness and fairness of the Norwegian pension reform. Scandinavian Political Studies, 38(4), 386–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Evans, M., & Davies, J. (1999). Understanding policy transfer: A multi-level. Multi-Disciplinary Perspective. Public Administration, 77(2), 361–385.Google Scholar
  22. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gilljam, M., & Oscarsson, H. (1996). Mapping the Nordic party space. Scandinavian Political Studies, 19(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grossback, L. J., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Peterson, D. A. M. (2004). Ideology and learning in policy diffusion. American Politics Research, 32(5), 521–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hinrichs, K., & Kangas, O. (2003). When is a change big enough to be a system shift? Small System-shifting Changes in German and Finnish Pension Policies Social Policy and Administration, 37(6), 573–591.Google Scholar
  27. Hogwood, B. W., & Peters, B. G. (1982). The dynamics of policy change. Policy Sciences, 14(3), 225–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holzmann, R., & Palmer, E. (2006). Pension reform: issues and prospects for non-financial defined contribution (NDC) schemes (pp. 1–671). Washington: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  30. Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (second (2nd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2008). Third generation policy diffusion studies and the analysis of policy mixes: Two steps forward and one step back? Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 10(4), 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hvinden, B. (2005). Velferdsstaten: Fortsatt storebror og lillebror i velferdspolitikken? In R. R. Borei (Ed.), Hundreårs ensomhet? Norge og Sverige 1905–2005 (pp. 56–62). Oslo: Statistisk sentralbyrå.Google Scholar
  33. Immergut, E. M. (1992). Health politics: Interests and institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Immergut, E. M., Anderson, K., & Schulze, I. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of West European pension politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Karvonen, L. (1981). Semi-domestic politics: Policy diffusion from Sweden to Finland. Cooperation and Conflict, 16(2), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  37. Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F., & Hill, M. (2011). Public policy analysis. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lucas, A. (1983). Public policy diffusion research: Integrating analytic paradigms. Science Communication, 4(3), 379–408.Google Scholar
  39. Marier, P. (2005). Where did the bureaucrats go? Role and influence of the public bureaucracy in the Swedish and French pension reform debate. Governance, 18(4), 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marier, P. (2008). Pension politics: Consensus and social conflict in ageing societies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Marsh, D., & Sharman, J. C. (2009). Policy diffusion and policy transfer. Policy Studies, 30(3), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. May, P. J. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mesa-Lago, C., & Müller, K. (2002). The politics of pension reform in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies, 34, 687–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nordic Social Statistical Committee (NOSOSKO). (2015). Social protection in the Nordic countries 2013/2014: Scope, expenditure and financing. Copenhagen: NOSOSKO.Google Scholar
  45. NOU. (1998a). Fleksibel pensjonering. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste Informasjonsforvaltning.Google Scholar
  46. NOU. (1998b). Fondering av folketrygden?. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste Informasjonsforvaltning.Google Scholar
  47. NOU. (2004). Modernisert folketrygd. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste Informasjonsforvaltning.Google Scholar
  48. Nygård, M. (2006). Welfare-ideological change in Scandinavia: A comparative analysis of Partisan Welfare State positions in four Nordic countries, 1970–2003. Scandinavian Political Studies, 29(4), 356–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. OECD. (1999). Maintaining prosperity in an ageing society. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  50. OECD. (2001). Economic survey: Norway. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  51. OECD. (2015). Pensions at a glance 2015: OECD and G20 indicators. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  52. Orenstein, M. A. (2005). The new pension reform as global policy. Global Social Policy, 5(2), 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Orenstein, M. A. (2008). Privatizing pensions: The transnational campaign for social security reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Overbye, E. (2008). How do politicians get away with path-breaking pension reforms? In C. Arza & M. Kohli (Eds.), Pension reform in Europe: politics, policies and outcomes (pp. 70–86). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Page, E. C. (2000). Future governance and the literature on policy transfer and lesson drawing. Paper presented at the ESRC Future Governance Program workshop on policy transfer, London,Google Scholar
  56. Palme, J. (2005). Features of the Swedish pension reform. The Japanese Journal of Social Security Policy, 4(1), 42–53.Google Scholar
  57. Palmer, E. (2000). The Swedish pension reform model: Framework and issues. Social protection discussion paper series. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
  58. Palmer, E. (2006). What Is NDC? In R. Holzmann & E. Palmer (Eds.), Pension reform: Issues and prospects for non-financial defined contribution (NDC) schemes (pp. 17–34). Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
  59. Pedersen, A. W. (2004). Halvhjertet kopi av brutal original: En sammenligning av Pensjonskommisjonens forslag og det nye svenske pensjonssystemet. Tidsskrift for Velferdsforskning, 7(2), 168–187.Google Scholar
  60. Pedersen, A. W. (2005). Two technical choices with critical implications: Issues in Scandinavian pension reform (p. 52). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Social Reseach.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pedersen, A. W. (2009). Fra konkurranse til kompromiss. En sammenlignende studie av to norske pensjonsreformer. In A.-H. Bay, A. W. Pedersen, & J. Saglie (Eds.), Når velferd blir politikk: Partier, organisasjoner og opinion (pp. 120–158). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.Google Scholar
  62. Peters, B. G. (2001). The politics of bureaucracy (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Peters, B. G. (2005). The Problem of Policy Problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 7(4), 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the welfare state? Reagan, thatcher, and the politics of retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Roberts, N. C. (1992). Public entrepreneurship and innovation. Policy Studies Review, 11(1), 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1993). Problem Defenition, Agenda Access, and Policy Choice. Policy Studies Journal, 21(1), 56–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rose, R. (1991). What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-drawing in public policy: A guide to learning across time and space. Chatham: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  69. Settergren, O. (2001). The automatic balance mechanism of the Swedish Pension system. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter 4.Google Scholar
  70. Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008). The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 840–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Simmons, B. A., & Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Tavits, M. (2003). Policy learning and uncertainty: The case of pension reform in Estonia and Latvia. The Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. True, J., & Mintrom, M. (2001). Transnotional networks and policy diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tsebelis, G. (1999). Veto players and law production in parliamentary democracies: An empirical analysis. American Political Science Review, 93(3), 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. The American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walker, J. L. (1973). Comment: Problems in research on the diffusion of policy innovations. The American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1186–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Weyland, K. (2005). Theories of policy diffusion: lessons from Latin American pension reform. World Politics, 57(2), 262–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weyland, K. (2007). Bounded rationality and policy diffusion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Concordia University Research Chair in Aging and Public Policy, Centre de recherche et d’expertise en gérontologie sociale (CREGES)Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations