Skip to main content

A novel understanding of experimentation in governance: co-producing innovations between “lab” and “field”

Policy Sciences volume 51, pages 213–229 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

What do experiments do for governance? Along with pragmatist and performative conceptions, we argue that they do not test already existing conditions of governing, but actively transform such conditions. Experiments help to realize specific models of governance by co-producing collective knowledge and material practices. We analyze a series of experiments with “emissions trading” in the USA between 1968 and 2000. The historical perspective shows how different types of experiments worked together: experiments in the laboratory and in the field supported each other in creating epistemic and political authority. This “ping-pong between lab and field” produced subjects and objects, facts and values, knowledge and power and aligned them in a new socio-material configuration, thus realizing emissions trading as a new form of governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Data sources include academic literature, policy documents, websites, personal archives, and interviews (conducted in 2010) with experts involved in the developments described here.

  2. We have worked extensively on this case. To see how our account differs from alternative explanations for how emissions trading emerged as a policy, see Voß (2007a, b), Voß and Simons (2014), Simons and Voß (2018, 2015), Simons (2015, 2016).

References

  • Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2016). Experimentalist governance 2.0: taking “Experiments” (More) Seriously. Working paper: https://www.buffalo.edu/content/www/baldycenter/events/speakers/_jcr_content/par/download/file.res/Abbott%20XG%20Buffalo%209-16.pdf. Retrieved 19 December 2016.

  • Ansell, C. K., & Bartenberger, M. (2016). Varieties of experimentalism. Ecological Economics, 130, 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Geyer, R. (2016). ‘Pragmatic complexity’ a new foundation for moving beyond ‘evidence-based policy making’? Policy Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2016.1219033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohi, D. R., & Burtraw, D. (1992). Utility investment behavior and the emission trading market. Resources and Energy, 14(1), 129–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley, H., & Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 311–357). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (2009). Civilizing markets: Carbon trading between in vitro and in vivo experiments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 535–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24(4), 409–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cason, T. N., & Plott, C. R. (1996). EPA’s new emissions trading mechanism: A laboratory evaluation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(2), 133–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(October), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, B. J. (1988). Bureaucratic politics and regulatory reform. The EPA and emission trading. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, T. D. (1966). The structuring of atmospheric pollution control systems. In H. Wolozin (Ed.), The economics of air pollution (pp. 61–86). New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dales, J. H. (1968). Pollution, property, and prices. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1986 [1938]). Logic: The theory of inquiry (John Dewey. The later works 1925–1953, volume 12: 1938). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

  • Dewey, J. (2012 [1927]). The public and its problems: An essay in political inquiry. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.

  • Disch, L. (2010). ‘Faitiche’-izing the people: What representative democracy might learn from science studies. In B. Braun, S. J. Whatmore, & I. Stengers (Eds.), Political matter: Technoscience, democracy, and public life (pp. 267–296). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Disch, L. (2011). Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review, 105(01), 100–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. (2007). The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual Review Sociology, 33, 449–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudek, D. J., & Palmisano, J. (1987). Emissions trading: Why is this thoroughbred hobbled. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 13, 217–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgert, L. (2010). Politicizing sustainable development: The co-production of globalized evidence-based policy. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3–4), 375–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman, D., & Harrison, D. (2003). Emissions trading in the US: Experience, lessons, and considerations for greenhouse gases. Los Angeles: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman, A. D., Joskow, P. L., Schmalensee, R., Montero, J.-P., & Bailey, E. M. (2000). Markets for clean air. The U.S. acid rain program. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, K. G. (2000). Reclaiming John Dewey: Democracy, inquiry, pragmatism, and public management. Administration & Society, 32(3), 308–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomart, E., & Hajer, M. A. (2003). Is that politics? For an inquiry into forms in contemporary politics. In B. Joerges & H. Nowotny (Eds.), Social studies of science and technology: Looking back, ahead (pp. 33–61). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, H. S., & Solomon, B. D. (2002). The origins and practice of emissions trading. Journal of Policy History, 14(3), 293–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guala, F. (2007). How to do things with experimental economics. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 128–162). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between the US politics and science. The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R. W., & Hester, G. L. (1989). Where did all the markets go-an analysis of EPA’s emissions trading program. Yale Journal on Regulation, 6, 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, S. D. (2015). Experiments in international relations: Lab, survey, and field. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 403–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004a). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004b). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order (pp. 13–43). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., & Huitema, D. (2014). Policy innovation in a changing climate: Sources, patterns and effects. Global Environmental Change, 29, 387–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (1992). The couch, the cathedral and the laboratory. On the relationship between experiment and laboratory in science. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 113–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4), 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K., & Mulkay, M. (1983). Science observed: New perspectives on the social study of science. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, R. (2012). The promiscuous history of market efficiency: The development of early emissions trading systems. Environmental Politics, 21(4), 583–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed. Perspectives on the social studies of science (pp. 142–169). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2003). What if we talked politics a little? Contemporary Political Theory, 2(2), 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence. An anthropology of the moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lövbrand, E. (2011). Co-producing European climate science and policy: A cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, C., & Voß, J.-P. (2018). Challenging futures: Concepts for engaging with dynamics of policy instrument design. In M. Padnamabhan (Ed.), Transdisciplinarity for sustainability (pp. 267–289). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A. A. (1980). Promise and performance. Choosing and implementing an environmental policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meidinger, E. (1985). On explaining the development of ‘emissions trading’ in U.S. air pollution regulation 10. Law and Policy, 7(4), 447–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. A. (2004). Climate science and the making of a global political order. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The coproduction of science and social order (pp. 46–66). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, W. D. (1972). Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. Journal of Economic Theory, 5(3), 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muniesa, F., & Callon, M. (2007). Economic experiments and the construction of markets. In D. MacKenzie, F. Muniesa, & L. Siu (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 163–189). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutley, S. M., Smith, P. C., & Davies, H. T. (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Briston: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates, W. E. (2000). From research to policy: the case of environmental economics. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 4(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum, 41(2), 169–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pooley, E. (2010). The climate war: True believers, power brokers, and the fight to save the earth. Wiley: e-book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1957). The poverty of historicism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosanvallon, P. (2006). Democracy past and future. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and power: Toward a political philosophy of science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, J. (2011). Articulating the world: Experimental systems and conceptual understanding. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(3), 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2010). Experimentalist governance in the European Union: Towards a new architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saward, M. (2006). The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory, 5(3), 297–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäpke, N., Stelzer, F., Bergmann, M., & Lang, D. J. (2016). Tentative theses on transformative research in real-world laboratories. First insights from the accompanying research forreal1. Technikfolgenabschätzung. Theorie und Praxis, 25(3), 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroth, F. (2016). The politics of governance experiments. Constructing the clean development mechanism. Doctoral dissertation. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin. https://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-5519.

  • Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14(4), 481–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, boyle, and the experimental life. NJ: Princeton University Press Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, A. (2015). Documented authority. The discursive construction of emissions trading in the expert literature. Doctoral Dissertation. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.

  • Simons, A. (2016). Fact-making in permit markets: Document networks as infrastructures of emissions trading. In J.-P. Voß & R. Freeman (Eds.), Knowing governance. The epistemic construction of political order (pp. 177–192). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, A., Lis, A., & Lippert, I. (2014). The political duality of scale-making in environmental markets. Environmental Politics, 23(4), 632–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, A., & Voß, J.-P. (2015). Politics by other means. The making of the emissions trading instrument as a ‘pre-history’ of carbon trading. In B. Stephan & R. Lane (Eds.), The politics of carbon markets (pp. 51–68). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, A., & Voß, J.-P. (2018). The concept of instrument constituencies: Accounting for dynamics and practices of knowing governance. Policy & Society, 37(1), 14–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavins, R. N. (1998). What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 69–88.

  • Stoker, G. (2010). Translating experiments into policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 628(1), 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strassheim, H., & Kettunen, P. (2014). When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 10(2), 259–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tietenberg, T. H. (1985). Emissions trading. An exercise in reforming pollution policy. Washington, DC: Ressources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2007a). Designs on governance. Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. Ph.D. thesis. Enschede: University of Twente. https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/designs-on-governance-development-of-policy-instruments-and-dynam-2. Accessed 28 Feb 2018.

  • Voß, J.-P. (2007b). Innovation processes in governance: The development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2010). Innovation of governance: The case of emissions trading. In M. J. Arentsen, W. Rossum, & A. E. Stenge (Eds.), Governance of innovation: Firms, clusters and institutions in a changing setting (pp. 125–148). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2014). Performative policy studies: Realizing ‘transition management’. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(4), 317–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2016a). Realizing instruments: Performativity in emissions trading and citizen panels. In J.-P. Voß & R. Freeman (Eds.), Knowing governance. The epistemic construction of political order (pp. 127–154). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2016b). Reflexively engaging with technologies of participation. Constructive assessment for public participation methods. In J. Chilvers & M. B. Kearnes (Eds.), Remaking participation: Science, environment and emergent publics (pp. 238–260). London: Routledge-Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P., & Bornemann, B. (2011). The politics of reflexive governance: Challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P., & Freeman, R. (Eds.). (2016). Knowing governance. The epistemic construction of political order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable developement (pp. 3–28). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  • Voß, J.-P., & Schroth, F. (2018). Experimentation: The politics of innovation and learning in polycentric governance. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. Van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: Polycentricity in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P., & Simons, A. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply-side of policy innovation: The social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, M. A. (2012). Dewey’s’ democracy without politics’: On the failures of liberalism and the frustrations of experimentalism. Contemporary Pragmatism, 9(2), 117–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technische Universität Berlin (TU Berlin), Berlin, Germany

    Jan-Peter Voß

  2. Deutsches Zentrum für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsforschung (DZHW), Technische Universität Berlin (TU Berlin), Berlin, Germany

    Arno Simons

Authors
  1. Jan-Peter Voß
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arno Simons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Peter Voß.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Voß, JP., Simons, A. A novel understanding of experimentation in governance: co-producing innovations between “lab” and “field”. Policy Sci 51, 213–229 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9313-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9313-9

Keywords

  • Experimental governance
  • Policy innovation
  • Policy design
  • Policy instrument
  • Emissions trading
  • Science and technology studies
  • Performativity
  • Epistemic authority
  • Political authority
  • Science–policy interaction