LIST OF PANELS

The ideational turn in policy analysis and comparative political economy has been so successful that today to argue that 'ideas matter' is almost a taken-for-granted proposition. Of course, there are many strands of ideational policy analysis (as shown by a recent special issue of Journal of European Public Policy, 23/3/2016; see also Cairney 2012; Goldstein & Keohane 1993; McNamara 1998), some connected with the theories of policy learning, others more concerned with the diffusion of economic policy paradigms such as 'austerity' (Beland and Cox 2009, Berman 2013; Blyth 2013; Helgadóttir 2016). The data show that the most prominent strand in terms of citation and popularity is the approach inaugurated by Peter Hall in the late 1980s and early 1990s with his seminal studies on the political power of economic ideas (Hall 1989; Hall 1993). 

However, especially in the strand concerned with policy paradigms, the ideational scholarship has been less successful in finding rigorous answers to questions such as where do ideas come from, what are they exactly, and how do they contribute to policy learning and policy change? This is especially true if we consider the advances made in disciplines like cognitive psychology and experimental-evolutionary economics: how open has been ideational policy analysis to the findings of these disciplines? Or, more pertinently perhaps, how receptive should it be, how much cumulative progress should we seek?

One problem with some strands of ideational policy analysis is how close the literature developed within ideational political science has been so far to the findings of other disciplines. Another is that the mechanisms theorized by political scientists are intellectually attractive, they seem to make sense in terms of our understanding of the policy process. Yes when we try to corroborate them with the findings of approaches that look at how people behave in the real world, we do not find the same mechanisms,  or we find the mechanisms with a different causal order among the variables (Kamkhaji and Radaelli 2017).

With this panel we seek to appraise and discuss research questions on the nature of ‘ideas’ (Parsons 2007), the relationship between ideational research and theories of the policy process (Weible et al 2009; Schmidt 2011), the microfoundations of ideational explanations, the link between paradigm formation and paradigm change (Princen and van Esch 2016), and the identification of explicit mechanisms that bring about policy change. Ideas are often evoked, but rarely approached rigorously in terms of concept formation and micro-foundations. On mechanisms, ideational scholarship points to learning, but it has not been conversant with the recent advances in behavioral sciences on how individuals and organizations really learn. Finally, we wish to discuss the boundaries between ideational and cognitive analysis (Jobert 1989, Muller 1995; 2000; 2005) and whether the latter offers a way forward to policy researchers interested in the role of ideas.

References

Béland, D. and R.H. Cox (2011) Introduction: Ideas and Politics, in Béland, D. and R.H. Cox (Eds) Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Berman, S. (2012). "Ideational theorizing in the social sciences since "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State"." Governance 26(2): 217-237.

Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Cairney, P. (2012). Understanding Public Policy. Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave Macmillan.

Goldstein, J. and R. O. Keohane (1993). Ideas and Foreign Policy. Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.

Hall, P. (1989). The Political Power of Economic Ideas. Keynesianism Across Nations. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Hall, P. (1993) ‘Policy paradigms, social learning and the state. The case of economic policy-making in Britain’ Comparative Politics 25(3) April: 275-296.

Helgadóttir, O. (2016). "The Bocconi boys go to Brussels: Italian economic ideas, professional networks and European austerity." Journal of European Public Policy 23(3): 392-409.

Jobert, B. (1989). "The normative frameworks of public policy." Political Studies 37: 376-386.

Kamkhaji, JC and C. M. Radaelli (2017) Crisis, learning and policy change in the European UnionJournal of European Public Policy, 24 5 714-734

McNamara, K. R. (1998). The Currency of Ideas. Monetary Politics in the European Union. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.

Muller, P. (1995). Les politiques publiques comme construction d'un rapport au monde. La Construction du Sens dans les Politiques Publiques. Débats autour de la Notion de Référentiel. A. Faure, G. Pollet and P. Warin. Paris, L'Harmattan: 153-179.

Muller, P. (2000). "L'analyse cognitive des politiques publiques : vers une sociologie politique de l'action publique." Revue française de science politique 50(2): 189-208.

Muller, P. (2005). "Esquisse d'une théorie du changement dans l'action publique: Structures, acteurs et cadres cognitifs" Revue française de science politique 55: 155-187.

Parsons, C. (2007). How to Map Arguments in Political Science. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Princen, S. and F van Esch (2016) Paradigm formation and paradigm change in the EU Stability and Growth Pact. European Political Science Review, 8:3, 355-375.

Schmidt, V.A. (2011) Reconciling ideas and institutions through discursive institutionalism, in Béland, D. and R.H. Cox (Eds) Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Weible, C. M., P. A. Sabatier and K. McQueen (2009). "Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalitions framework." Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 121-140.

Eleanor Roosevelt is known for having said: “Great minds discuss ideas: average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people”. With this panel we wish to connect ideational scholarship, empirical analysis, and behavior. The ‘ideas school’ in comparative political economy is indeed a precious edifice in the world of social sciences: with its concepts and propositions about power, ideas and policy change it has animated at least three waves of scholarship (Blyth 2016). Today we find references to policy paradigms, the levels of policy change, and the political power of economic ideas in textbooks used in foundational courses on policy analysis.

With this panel we aim to critically contribute to its appraisal and development in the following directions: the nature of ‘ideas’, the microfoundations of ideational explanations, and the identification of explicit mechanisms that bring about policy change. Ideas are often evoked, but rarely approached rigorously in terms of concept formation and micro-foundations. On mechanisms, the ‘ideas school’ point to learning, but it has not been conversant with the recent advances in behavioral sciences on how individuals and organizations really learn. Finally, we wish to discuss the boundaries between ideational and cognitive analysis.