LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Policy Feedback and Policy Dynamics: Methodological and Theoretical Challenges

Much has been written about policy feedback in general and, more specifically, how existing policies can shape politics and future policy developments (for extensive reviews see Béland 2010; Burroughs 2017). As such, policy feedback is a key concept in policy research across a number of disciplines and policy areas, yet it remains largely undertheorized and unspecified from a conceptual and methodological standpoint. Also, because of this lack of common theoretical, conceptual and methodological ground, empirical studies of policy feedback across disciplines and policy areas are hard to compare, compromising the investigation of pressing feedback-related policy questions on critically important fields including climate, environmental politics and healthcare reform.

Recent policy feedback research has begun to fill these gaps by shifting focus towards explaining policy dynamics (in the form of stability and change) rather than effects on actors. In their agenda-setting paper, Jordan and Matt (2014) sum up this new perspective by arguing that “in order to count as a policy feedback, the effect (or more likely effects) should have a politically significant impact not only on the original actors at t+1, but also on the original policy” (p 231). Starting from the realization that policies always induce a combination of self-reinforcing and self-undermining feedback processes (Weaver 2010), policy feedback research has expanded its theoretical toolkit for explaining policy change: Some researchers have argued for distinguishing between pre- and retrospective (alternatively: enactment and post-enactment) feedback processes (Burroughs 2017; Patashnik and Zelizer 2013) since actors’ positions can change due to both negative or positive feedback. Others have begun addressing the conditionality of feedback effects, i.e. how endogenous feedback processes and exogenous factors work in combination to determine policy change (e.g. Schmidt and Sewerin 2017). Skogstad (2017) argues specifically that including conditionality of feedback effects into account can offer leverage to analyze both incremental and major policy change without having to rely on ad hoc exogenous variables. Finally, Jacobs and Weaver (2015) draw attention to the need to study more closeliy negative, self-undermining feedback that sets in motion processes that undermine a policy’s political viability over time, rendering it unstable and vulnerable to change. They point out that there is little conceptual justification for associating positive feedback mechanisms with the outcome of policy stability, or negative feedback mechanisms with policy change. Instead, they argue – similar to Jordan and Matt (2014) – that positive feedback can be a key driver of policy change, while negative feedback can be a powerful stabilizing force. Thus, recent scholarship challenges long-held assumptions about feedback, particularly how positive feedbacks can be self-reinforcing when they serve to stabilize or expand early policy choices and that lock-in policies in a country and result in stable policy regimes (Pierson 1993, 2000).

Despite these theoretical and conceptual advances, policy feedback research still treats ‘policy’ or ‘policy change’ in different ways, often quite abstractly. In the words of Jordan and Matt (2014, p. 235), “to [Pierson’s] evident frustration […], the policy feedback literature has continued to focus on rather broad elements of policy such as programmes and policy regimes” (see for example Weaver 2010; May and Jochim 2013). There is thus a disconnection to developments in policy research in general and policy change studies in particular where both conceptual (e.g. Howlett 2014; Howlett and Cashore 2009; Cashore and Howlett 2007; Schaffrin, Sewerin and Seubert 2015) and empirical studies (e.g. Schaffrin, Sewerin and Seubert 2014) contribute to a revived interest in the study of policy design. The workshop to advance this disconnect by focusing on the micro-level policy design elements such as settings and calibrations (Howlett and Cashore 2009), which stands in contrast to the policy feedback literature that focused on the meso-level of policy instrument types or the macro-level of policy regimes (e.g. Weaver 2010). The lack of attention towards the micro-level of policy design changes means that both theoretical assumptions about and conceptualizations of feedback effects on policy design are missing. Therefore, we argue that the integration of a policy design perspective into policy feedback research is crucial in overcoming existing theoretical, conceptual and empirical bottlenecks stymieing the further development of the field. Hencee  key bottleneck to be overcome is the dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: knowing exactly what changes is a prerequisite for follow-up why and how questions involving feedback. Tackling this empirical data challenge would enable for incorporating systematic quantitative approaches for the analysis of policy dynamics (see Schaffrin, Sewerin and Seubert 2015).

Against this background, the prime objective of this workshop is bringing together these literatures and scholarly communities. To this end, we propose four broad research questions (see below) that aim at addressing key theoretical and methodological issues stemming from the analysis of policy feedback. We thus seek to facilitate the shift to systematically studying feedbacks in relation to policy dynamics rather than actors or policy outcomes. Greater conceptual and empirical clarity in the study of feedbacks will also encourage the development of empirical studies, both in the form of encompassing case studies and in the form of systematic and comparative large(r)-n analyses.

Further developing feedback research is of high relevance not only for theoretical but also for practical reasons: A better understanding of the relation between policy feedback and policy stability and change would allow for developing better recommendations for designing long-term effective policies and policy mixes. This is especially important in policy areas where fast and deep transitions are needed, such as in the field climate and environmental policy, or where existing feedback processes stabilize ineffective policy regimes that affect the lives of many people, such as in the field of health care or social security. The argument for the intentional design of ‘sticky’ policies that are resilient to efforts of revoking them (Jordan and Matt 2014) or the call for developing an ‘applied forward reasoning’ approach to policy analysis that enables to overcome ‘super wicked’ policy challenges by generating path-dependent policy interventions that can ‘constrain our future collective selves’ (Levin, Cashore, Bernstein, and Auld 2013) are very prominent examples of agenda-setting arguments that would profit from a better understanding of feedback effects.

Research Questions, Types of Contributions Invited and Publication Plans

These broad research questions will guide the workshop:

1)         How can we rethink the concept of policy feedback to study both stability and change?

Key point here is to think about policy feedback in the form of long-term loops rather than short-term feedback cycles, i.e., researchers are invited to investigate how policy changes at t1, t2, t3 etc. Both theoretical/conceptual and empirical work that engages with long-term temporal policy dynamics is invited.

2)         More concretely, what are the mechanisms behind feedback processes? Does policy feedback expand or narrow policy options and why?

Our conceptual understanding of feedback mechanisms remains limited, especially in relation to policy design. We encourage both theoretical/conceptual contributions that engage with feedback and policy design and empirical investigations of pre- and/or post-enactment dynamics in any specific policy field.

3)         What is the impact of policy design and instrument types on policy feedback?

To bring together the literatures on policy design and policy feedback, we invite contributions that discuss potential effects of policy design characteristics on long-term policy dynamics. This could be done either in a conceptual way, building on the extant body of policy design literature, or empirically, e.g. in the form of an inductive research design.

4)         How do we address key methodological issues such as how to measure policy output and/or change to move the policy feedback agenda forward while fostering a greater diversity of research methods in the area?

This question is intimately linked to the dependent variable problem in the study of policy change. We invite contributions that develop conceptual and measurement approaches to assess policy change in a systematic manner across policy fields or that critically apply existing measurement approaches to relevant case studies.

The intention is to integrate the received contributions into a special issue of a peer-reviewed policy journal. This special issue should strike the balance between clear theoretical/conceptual work and sound and relevant empirical applications and analyses in order to clearly define a research agenda on policy feedback and policy design.

References

Béland, Daniel. 2010. “Reconsidering Policy Feedback: How Policies Affect Politics.” Administration & Society 42(5): 568-590

Burroughs, Richard. 2017. “Positive and Negative Feedback in Policy Formulation.” In Handbook of Policy Formulation, eds. Michael Howlett and Ishani Mukherjee. Edward Elgar, 63–79.

Cashore, Benjamin, and Michael Howlett. 2007. "Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest forestry." American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 532-551.

Howlett, Michael. 2014. “From the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ Policy Design: Design Thinking beyond Markets and Collaborative Governance.” Policy Sciences 47(3): 187–207.

Howlett, Michael, and Benjamin Cashore. 2009. “The Dependent Variable Problem in the Study of Policy Change: Understanding Policy Change as a Methodological Problem.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11(1): 33–46.

Jordan, Andrew, and Elah Matt. 2014. “Designing Policies That Intentionally Stick: Policy Feedback in a Changing Climate.” Policy Sciences 47(3): 227–47.

Levin, Kelly, Benjamin Cashore, Steven Bernstein, and Graeme Auld. 2012. “Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems: Constraining our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change.” Policy sciences 45(2), 123-152.

May, Peter J., and Ashley E. Jochim. 2013. “Policy Regime Perspectives: Policies, Politics, and Governing.” Policy Studies Journal 41(3): 426–52.

Patashnik, Eric M., and Julian E. Zelizer. 2013. “The Struggle to Remake Politics: Liberal Reform and the Limits of Policy Feedback in the Contemporary American State.” Perspectives on Politics 11(04): 1071–87..

Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause. Policy Feedback and Political Change.” World Politics 45: 595–628.

———. 2000. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 94(2): 251–67.

Schaffrin, André, Sebastian Sewerin, and Sibylle Seubert. 2014. “The Innovativeness of National Policy Portfolios – Climate Policy Change in Austria, Germany, and the UK.” Environmental Politics 23(5): 860–83.

———. 2015. “Toward a Comparative Measure of Climate Policy Output.” Policy Studies Journal 43(2): 257–82.

Schmidt, Tobias S., and Sebastian Sewerin. 2017. “Technology as a Driver of Climate and Energy Politics.” Nature Energy 2: 17084.

Skogstad, Grace. 2017. “Policy Feedback and Self-Reinforcing and Self-Undermining Processes in EU Biofuels Policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 24(1): 21–41

Weaver, R. Kent. 2010. “Paths and Forks or Chutes and Ladders?: Negative Feedbacks and Policy Regime Change.” Journal of Public Policy 30(02): 137–62.

The recent shift in the feedback literature towards explaining long-term policy dynamics offers opportunities for scholars from various disciplinary backgrounds and with expertise in any policy area to contribute to the revitalization of policy feedback research. As part of this workshop, scholars are invited to submit paper proposals dealing with key empirical, methodological, and theoretical issues (as described in the workshop outline) that may advance policy feedback research especially in relation to policy design. We encourage conceptual/theoretical contributions that rethink policy feedback to study policy dynamics or that engage with the mechanisms behind policy feedback processes. Regarding policy design, we invite paper proposals that aim to bring together the literatures on policy feedback and policy design and/or study the effects of policy design characteristics on long-term policy dynamics. We particularly encourage empirical and comparative contributions that tackle the question of how to study feedback effects on policy dynamics in a systematic and encompassing way, either using established approaches of assessing policy change or presenting new measurement approaches.

Each paper proposal should feature a title, a 400-word abstract, a short 100 word biographical sketch for each contributor and contact information. Please contact the co-organizers directly if you have any questions about this call for proposals.

 The policy feedback literature has begun to shift focus towards explaining policy dynamics (i.e. stability and change) rather than effects on actors. While recent scholarship has challenged long-held assumptions about policy feedback, particularly how positive feedbacks lead to lock-in and long-term stable policy regimes, many theoretical, conceptual and methodological bottlenecks persist that impede the revitalization of feedback research. We argue that integrating the thriving literature on policy design is key in overcoming such bottlenecks. Conceptual and methodological advances in systematically assessing change on the micro-level of policy design features (or policy elements) would help feedback researchers to better define policy dynamics as their dependent variable of interest and would help overcoming the pre-occupation of feedback research with rather general policy regimes. Crucially, more empirical studies of policy feedback and policy dynamics are needed in order to inductively develop new hypotheses or to test established hypotheses and assumptions from the literature. Besides the theoretical and methodological relevance of the topic, engaging with the nexus between policy design and policy feedback is crucial for developing better policy recommendations for designing effective policies and policy mixes. Tackling particularly “super wicked” policy problems (e.g. climate change, the energy transition, but also healthcare reform) requires a better understanding of the relation between policy feedback and long-term policy stability and change. The workshop and its resulting publications, be they theoretical/conceptual, methodological or empirical, are expected to boost feedback research by providing an encompassing research agenda as well as empirical blueprints that allow other researchers to follow-up on these contributions.

Sebastian Sewerin is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology’s (ETH Zurich) Energy Politics Group. His research is focused on the conceptualization and empirical measurement of policy change, his topical specialization is on energy and environmental policy. He has published in Policy Studies Journal, Environmental Politics and Nature Energy, and is co-editor of a book on the effect of the economic crisis on European environmental policy with Oxford University Press (to be published in 2018). Sebastian holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Cologne (Germany) and, during his PhD and Postdoc research, was a visiting scholar at Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy (University of Saskatchewan), and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (University of East Anglia). In his Nature Energy article, he has described a research agenda for understanding the feedback links between technology, politics, and policy; he co-organized a panel on “Designing Sticky Policies: How to Steer the Co-evolution of Policy and Technology” at IPCC3 in 2017; with Benjamin Cashore and Michael Howlett, he is currently working on several papers on identifying mechanisms of policy change and governing policy feedback processes.

Benjamin Cashore is Professor of Environmental Governance & Political Science at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He is Director of the Governance, Environment and Markets (GEM) Initiative at Yale and is the Joseph C. Fox Faculty Director of the Yale International Fox Fellows Program. He is courtesy joint appointed in Yale’s Department of Political Science. His major research interests include the emergence of non‐state governance innovations, their intersection with traditional governmental processes, and the role of firms, non‐state actors, civil society and governments in shaping these trends. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals such as American Journal of Political Science; Regulation and Governance; Governance; Policy Sciences; Global Environmental Politics; Environmental Science and Policy; Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. His book, “Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-state Authority” (with Graeme Auld and Deanna Newsom), was awarded the International Studies Association’s 2005 Sprout Prize for the best book on international environmental policy and politics. His ongoing research efforts concerning policy feedback are focused on understanding climate change as a “super wicked” problem through applying a path-dependency logic as well as policy triggers, i.e. under what conditions some policies unleash long-term path-dependent trajectories.

Daniel Béland is a full professor and he holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Policy (Tier 1) at the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy. A specialist of fiscal and social policy, he has published more than 15 books and 120 articles in peer-reviewed journals such as Administration & Society, Comparative Political Studies, Governance, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Journal of European Public Policy, Journal of Public Policy, Journal of Social Policy, Policy & Politics, Policy and Society, Policy Studies Journal, and Social Policy & Administration. Recent books include Advanced Introduction to Social Policy (Edward Elgar, 2016; with Rianne Mahon), and Obamacare Wars: Federalism, State Politics, and the Affordable Care Act (University Press of Kansas, 2016; with Philip Rocco and Alex Waddan). He has published extensively on policy feedback, including a widely cited review article published in 2010 (“Reconsidering Policy Feedback: How Policies Affect Politics,” Administration & Society, 42(5): 568-590). With various collaborators, he is currently working on several papers on policy feedback: one on health care in Ghana, one on pension reform in Canada, and one on the Affordable Care Act in the United States. He is also co-editing a special issue on policy feedback for Policy Studies Journal.