Advertisement

The Effects of Institutional Change on Austrian Integration Policy and the Contexts that Matter

  • Oliver Gruber
  • Sieglinde Rosenberger
Chapter
Part of the Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy book series (PEPP)

Abstract

In the literature on public administration and policymaking, institutions are considered important as they shape collective regulation and public policies (March & Olsen, 1993; Peters, 2012). While a growing body of literature is available on the reasons and forms of institutional change (Koning, 2015; Mahoney & Thelen, 2010; Rocco & Thurston, 2014; Streek & Thelen, 2005; see also Bakir & Jarvis in this volume), less research has been done on the influence of institutional change on policy change. We have little knowledge of whether and how institutional reform can instigate changes in policymaking and the policy outputs produced. The literature on institutionalism generally focuses on established areas (economy, finance, foreign affairs, social affairs, etc.) and neglects emerging policy areas, especially emerging policy areas of low status within the architecture of government and public administration. This chapter contributes to filling this gap and focuses on the potential and impact of institutional reform on public policy in an area of steadily growing relevance, that of immigrant integration. It utilizes the introduction of an executive actor in the Austrian government, the State Secretary for Integration (SSI), as a case study to respond to two research questions: What forms of public policy change are stimulated by a new executive actor in the novel policy area of migrant integration? How can these policy changes (or the lack thereof) be explained by the contexts and facilitating conditions in which the new executive actor is embedded?

References

  1. Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration. A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amable, B. (2003). The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakir, C. (2013). Bank behaviour and resilience. The effect of structures, institutions and agents. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakir, C. (2017). How can interactions among interdependent structures, institutions, and agents inform financial stability? What we have still to learn from global financial crisis. Policy Sciences, 50(2), 217–239.Google Scholar
  5. Bakir, C., & Acur, N. (2016). Greenfield investments and acquisitions of Turkish multinationals. Trends, motivations and strategies. In L. Brennan & C. Bakir (Eds.), Emerging market multinationals in Europe (pp. 129–156). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Balch, A., & Geddes, A. (2012). Connections between admission policies and integration policies at the EU level and given linkages with national policy making. PROSINT Comparative Reports.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, M. W., & Knill, C. (2014). A conceptual framework for the comparative analysis of policy change: Measurement, explanation and strategies of policy dismantling. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(1), 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1992). Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations. American Sociological Review, 57(4), 540–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.Google Scholar
  10. Béland, D. (2009). Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 701–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bell, D. (1976). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture into social forecasting. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  12. Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. (Eds.). (2010). Carrots, sticks & sermons. Policy instruments & their evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Benton, M., McCarthy, H., & Collett, E. (2015). Into the mainstream: Rethinking public services for diverse and mobile populations. Brussels: Migration Policy Institute Europe.Google Scholar
  14. Birkland, T. A. (2011). An introduction to the policy process. Theorie, concepts, and models of public policy making (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. BMEIA. (2011). Integrationsbericht—Vorschläge des Expertenrates für Integration. Vienna: Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs (BMEIA).Google Scholar
  16. BMEIA. (2014). Bilanz—bisherige Umsetzung der Vorschläge des Expertenrats. Vienna: Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs (BMEIA).Google Scholar
  17. Borkert, M., & Penninx, R. (2011). Policymaking in the field of migration and integration in Europe: An introduction. In G. Zincone, M. Borkert, & R. Penninx (Eds.), Migration policymaking in Europe. The dynamics of actors and contexts in past and present (pp. 7–17). Amsterdam: University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Buonanno, L., & Nugent, N. (2013). Policies and policy processes of the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27(3), 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campbell, J. L. (2011). The US financial crisis: Lessons for theories of institutional complementarity. Socio-Economic Review, 9(2), 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carrera, S., & Atger, A. F. (2011). Integration as a two-way process in the EU? Assessing the relationship between the European integration fund and the common basic principles on integration. Brussels: CEPS Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  22. Collett, E. (2015). The development of the EU policy on immigration and asylum. Rethinking coordination and leadership. MPI Europe Policy Brief. Brussels: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Council of Europe (Ed.). (1997). Measurement and indicators of integration. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Crouch, C. (2010). Complementarity. In G. Morgan, J. L. Campbell, C. Crouch, O. K. Pedersen, & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis (pp. 117–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Crouch, C., Streeck, W., Boyer, R., Amable, B., Hall, P. A., & Jackson, G. (2005). Dialogue on ‘institutional complementarity and political economy’. Socio-Economic Review, 3(2), 359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Czada, R. (2010). The Governance of Immigrant Integration in Europe. Paper presented at the Shaken International Symposium “Governance of Contemporary Japan”, University of Tokyo. http://www.politik.uni-osnabrueck.de/download/Governance%20of%20Migrant%20Integration%20in%20Europe.pdf
  27. Desiderio, M. V., & Weinar, A. (2014). Supporting immigrant integration in Europe? Developing the governance for Diaspora management. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  28. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and culture (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  29. Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization Studies, 26(3), 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Egeberg, M. (2003). How bureaucratic structure matters: An organizational perspective. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 116–126). London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Entzinger, H., & Biezeveld, R. (2003). Benchmarking in immigrant integration. Rotterdam: European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER).Google Scholar
  32. Fawcett, P., & Marsh, D. (2014). Depoliticization, governance and political participation. Policy & Politics, 42(2), 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fleurke, F., & Hulst, R. (2006). A contingency approach to decentralization. Public Organization Review, 6, 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Flinders, M., & Buller, J. (2006). Depoliticisation: Principles, tactics and tools. British Politics, 1(3), 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Flinders, M., & Wood, M. (Eds.). (2015). Tracing the political. Depoliticisation, governance and the state. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  37. Fox, W., Bayat, S., & Ferreira, N. (2006). A guide to managing public policy. Cape Town: Juta.Google Scholar
  38. Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Geddes, A., Niessen, J., Balch, A., Bullen, C., & Peiro, M. J. (2005). European Civic Citizenship and Inclusion Index. Brussels: British Council Brussels.Google Scholar
  40. Gordon, I., Lewis, J., & Young, K. (1977). Perspectives on policy analysis. Public Administration Bulletin, 25, 26–35.Google Scholar
  41. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gruber, O. (2014). Campaigning in Radical Right Heartland. The electoral politicization of immigration and ethnic relations in Austrian general elections,1971–2013. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Gruber, O. (2017). Institutionalising a cross-sectional policy area? Ministerial competences for migrant integration in EU member states. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(11), 1923–1942.Google Scholar
  44. Guiraudon, V. (2003). The constitution of a European immigration policy domain: A political sociology approach. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(2), 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Haxhi, I., van Ees, H., & Sorge, A. (2013). A political perspective on business elites and institutional embeddedness in the UK code-issuing process. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(6), 535–546.Google Scholar
  47. Heckmann, F., & Schnapper, D. (2003). Introduction. In F. Heckmann & D. Schnapper (Eds.), The integration of immigrants in European societies: National differences and trends of convergence (pp. 9–14). Stuttgart: Lucius and Lucius.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hinings, C. R., Greenwood, R., Reay, T., & Suddaby, R. (2004). Dynamics of change in organizational fields. In M. S. Poole & A. H. van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 304–323). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Höpner, M. (2005). Epilogue to ‘Explaining institutional complementarity’: What have we learnt? Complementarity, coherence and institutional change. Socio-Economic Review, 3(2), 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Huddleston, T., Niessen, J., Chaoimh, E. N., & White, E. (2011). Index integration und migration III: MIPEX III. Brussels: Migration Policy Group.Google Scholar
  51. Hult, K. M. (2003). Environmental perspectives on public institutions. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 149–159). London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hwang, H., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Problematizing actors and institutions in institutional work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Joppke, C. (2007). Immigrants and civic integration in Western Europe. In K. Banting, T. J. Courchene, & F. L. Seidle (Eds.), Belonging? Diversity, recognition and shared citizenship in Canada (pp. 321–350). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kahl, A., & Weber, K. (2008). Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht. Wien: Facultas.Google Scholar
  55. Keller, J. W., & Yang, Y. E. (2008). Leadership style, decision context, and the poliheuristic theory of decision making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(5), 687–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  57. Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F., & Hill, M. (2011). Public policy analysis. Bristol: The Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Koning, E. A. (2015). The three institutionalisms and institutional dynamics: Understanding endogenous and exogenous change. Journal of Public Policy, 36(4), 639–664.Google Scholar
  59. Koopmans, R., Statham, P., Giugni, M., & Passy, F. (2005). Contested citizenship: Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  60. Kraler, A. (2011). Immigrant and immigration policy making in Austria. In G. Zincone, R. Penninx, & M. Borkert (Eds.), The making of migration and integration policies in Europe. Processes, actors and contexts in past and present (pp. 21–59). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). lnstitutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Levy, J. S. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency and power. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1993). Institutional perspective on political institutions. In M. Hill (Ed.), The policy process: A reader (2nd ed., pp. 139–155). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Marks, G., & Hooghe, L. (2004). Contrasting visions of multi-level governance. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 15–30). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Martiniello, M. (2006). Towards a coherent approach to immigrant integration policy(ies) in the European Union. OECD.Google Scholar
  68. Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. W. (1995). Der akteurszentrierte Institutionalismus. In R. Mayntz & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung (pp. 39–72). Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  69. Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mourão Permoser, J. (2010). Redefining membership: European Union policy on the rights of third-country nationals. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna, Vienna.Google Scholar
  71. Mourão Permoser, J., & Rosenberger, S. (2012). Integration policy in Austria. In J. Frideres & J. Biles (Eds.), International perspectives: Integration and inclusion (pp. 39–58). Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Mühlhans, T. (2011). Das BM.I als Koordinator und Gestalter im Integrationsbereich. Mit besonderem Augenmerk auf den Bereich der Förderung von Integrationsprojekten. SIAK-Journal—Zeitschrift für Polizeiwissenschaft und polizeiliche Praxis, 7(3), 25–33.Google Scholar
  73. Niessen, J., Huddleston, T., & Citron, L. (2007). Migrant Integration Policy Index. Brussels: Migration Policy Group.Google Scholar
  74. Parsons, W. (2001). Public policy. An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  75. Penninx, R., & Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2016). The concept of integration as an analytical tool and as a policy concept. In R. Penninx & B. Garcés-Mascareñas (Eds.), Integration processes and policies in Europe. Contexts, levels and actors (pp. 11–30). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Perchinig, B. (2009). Von der Fremdarbeit zur Integration? (Arbeits)migrations- und Integrationspolitik in der Zweiten Republik. Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur, 53(3), 228–246.Google Scholar
  77. Peters, B. G. (1999). American public policy. Promise and performance. New York: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  78. Peters, B. G. (2012). Institutional theory in political science. The new institutionalism (3rd ed.). New York, NY and London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  79. Peters, B. G., & Van Nispen, F. K. M. (Eds.). (1998). Public policy instruments. Evaluating the tools of public administration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  80. Rocco, P., & Thurston, C. (2014). From metaphors to measures: Observable indicators of gradual institutional change. Journal of Public Policy, 34(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rosenberger, S., & Seeber, G. (2011). Kritische Einstellungen: BürgerInnen zu Demokratie, Politik, Migration. In R. Polak (Ed.), Zukunft. Werte. Europa. Die Europäische Wertestudie 1990–2010: Österreich im Vergleich (pp. 165–190). Vienna, Cologne, and Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  83. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  84. Sager, F., & Rielle, Y. (2013). Sorting through the garbage can: Under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs? Policy Sciences, 46(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Scharpf, F. W. (2000). Institutions in comparative policy research. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6/7), 762–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schmidt, M. G. (1996). When parties matter: A review of possibilities and limits of partisan influence on public policy. European Journal of Political Research, 30, 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schmidt, V. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2004). Policy change and discourse in Europe: Conceptual and methodological issues. West European Politics, 27(2), 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: Kansas City University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Scholten, P., Entzinger, H., & Penninx, R. (2015). Research-policy dialogues on migrant integration in Europe: A conceptual framework and key questions. In P. Scholten, H. Entzinger, R. Penninx, & S. Verbeek (Eds.), Integrating immigrants in Europe. Research-policy dialogues (pp. 1–16). Heidelberg, New York, and London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Scholz, A. (2012). Migrationspolitik zwischen moralischem Anspruch und strategischem Kalkül. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Schout, A., & Pereyra, F. (2011). The institutionalization of EU agencies as ‘mini commissions’. Public Administration, 89(2), 418–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2011). Policy narratives and policy processes. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 535–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Shepsle, K. A. (1986). Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions. In H. Weisberg (Ed.), Political science: The science of politics. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  94. Strasser, S., & Tošić, J. (2013). Egalität, Autonomie und Integration: Post-Multikulturalismus in Österreich. In B. Nieswand & H. Drotbohm (Eds.), Kultur, Gesellschaft, Migration. Die reflexive Wende in der Migrationsforschung (pp. 123–150). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  95. Streek, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In W. Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 3–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Stromquist, N. P. (1998). Institutionalization of gender and its impact on educational policy. Comparative Education, 34(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  98. van de Ven, A. H., & Hargrave, T. J. (2004). Social, technical, and institutional change. A literature review and synthesis. In M. S. Poole & A. H. van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 259–303). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  99. van der Doelen, F. C. J. (1989). Beleidsinstrumenten en energiebesparing. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.Google Scholar
  100. Vedung, E. (2010). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 21–58). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  101. Wiesbrock, A. (2013). Guest workers, 1970s to present. In I. Ness (Ed.), The encyclopedia of global human migration. St. Albans: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  102. Wieser, B. (1997). Der Staatssekretär. Eine Untersuchung zum Organtypus des politischen Ministergehilfen. Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  103. Woldendorp, J., Keman, H., & Budge, I. (2000). Party government in 48 democracies (1945–1998). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zincone, G., Penninx, R., & Borkert, M. (Eds.). (2011). Migration policymaking in Europe. The dynamics of actors and contexts in past and present. Amsterdam: University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Gruber
    • 1
  • Sieglinde Rosenberger
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations