IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v53y2020i2d10.1007_s11077-019-09366-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change

Author

Listed:
  • Carsten Daugbjerg

    (University of Copenhagen
    The Australian National University)

  • Adrian Kay

    (The Australian National University)

Abstract

The policy feedback literature was initially concerned with explaining how positive feedback could lead to self-reinforcing policy trajectories. More recently, policy scholars have devoted more attention to negative feedbacks which can result in self-undermining policy trajectories. This article moves beyond these two well-known pathways to policy endurance and change by conceptually outlining two additional pathways to endurance and change. We argue that positive and negative feedback may be observed simultaneously within the same policy trajectory. The existing literature fails to distinguish adequately between policy feedback processes operating at the ideational and instrument levels of policy. We outline a pathway to endurance in which negative feedbacks at the policy instrument level result in instrument change which can be a necessary condition for sustained positive feedback processes at the ideational level of policy. Somewhat counterintuitively, we argue a policy pathway in which positive instrument feedbacks undermine the ideational foundation of policy. With positive instrument feedback overshadowing negative feedbacks, misalignment between policy and the broader context, eventually undermining the policy, is likely to occur at some point. These new insights are important for policy planning with longer time horizons.

Suggested Citation

  • Carsten Daugbjerg & Adrian Kay, 2020. "Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 253-268, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:53:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-019-09366-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-019-09366-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-019-09366-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-019-09366-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Colin Crouch & Henry Farrell, 2004. "Breaking the Path of Institutional Development? Alternatives to the New Determinism," Rationality and Society, , vol. 16(1), pages 5-43, February.
    3. Philip Arestis, 2012. "Fiscal policy: a strong macroeconomic role," Review of Keynesian Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 1(0), pages 93-108.
    4. Andrew Baker, 2018. "Macroprudential regimes and the politics of social purpose," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 293-316, May.
    5. Giliberto Capano & Jun Jie Woo, 2017. "Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 399-426, September.
    6. Kay, Adrian, 2011. "UK Monetary Policy Change During the Financial Crisis: Paradigms, Spillovers, and Goal Co-ordination," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 143-161, August.
    7. Philip Arestis & Malcolm Sawyer, 2008. "A critical reconsideration of the foundations of monetary policy in the new consensus macroeconomics framework," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 32(5), pages 761-779, September.
    8. Weaver, Kent, 2010. "Paths and Forks or Chutes and Ladders?: Negative Feedbacks and Policy Regime Change," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 137-162, August.
    9. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    10. Dermot Hodson & Deborah Mabbett, 2009. "UK Economic Policy and the Global Financial Crisis: Paradigm Lost?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(5), pages 1041-1061, November.
    11. Benjamin Cashore & Michael Howlett, 2007. "Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 532-551, July.
    12. Andrew Hindmoor & Allan McConnell, 2013. "Why Didn't They See it Coming? Warning Signs, Acceptable Risks and the Global Financial Crisis," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(3), pages 543-560, October.
    13. Michael Pahle & Dallas Burtraw & Christian Flachsland & Nina Kelsey & Eric Biber & Jonas Meckling & Ottmar Edenhofer & John Zysman, 2018. "Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(10), pages 861-867, October.
    14. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    15. Andrew Jordan & Elah Matt, 2014. "Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 227-247, September.
    16. Dermot Hodson & Deborah Mabbett, 2009. "UK Economic Policy and the Global Financial Crisis: Paradigm Lost?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47, pages 1041-1061, November.
    17. Andrew Baker, 2013. "The New Political Economy of the Macroprudential Ideational Shift," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 112-139, February.
    18. Kelly Levin & Benjamin Cashore & Steven Bernstein & Graeme Auld, 2012. "Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(2), pages 123-152, June.
    19. Hall, Peter A. & Taylor, Rosemary C. R., 1996. "Political science and the three new institutionalisms," MPIfG Discussion Paper 96/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    20. Howlett, Michael, 2009. "Process Sequencing Policy Dynamics: Beyond Homeostasis and Path Dependency," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 241-262, December.
    21. Grace Skogstad, 2008. "Canadian Agricultural Programs and Paradigms:The Influence of International Trade Agreements and Domestic Factors," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(4), pages 493-507, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marques, Marcelo, 2021. "How do policy instruments generate new ones? Analysing policy instruments feedback and interaction in educational research in England, 1986-2014," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    2. Yue Guo & Lei Zhou & Jidong Chen, 2023. "The persuasive role of the past: Policy feedback and citizens' acceptance of information communication technologies during the COVID‐19 pandemic in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 573-588, July.
    3. Nicole Marie Brennan & Abigail Teresa Evans & Meredith Kate Fritz & Stephanie Allison Peak & Haley Elizabeth von Holst, 2021. "Trends in the Regulation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-28, October.
    4. Marco Di Giulio & Giancarlo Vecchi, 2023. "How “institutionalization” can work. Structuring governance for digital transformation in Italy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 406-432, May.
    5. Omri Carmon & Itay Fischhendler, 2021. "A friction perspective for negotiating renewable energy targets: the Israeli case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 313-344, June.
    6. Daniel Polman & Gerry Alons, 2021. "Reap what you sow: implementing agencies as strategic actors in policy feedback dynamics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 823-848, December.
    7. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grace Skogstad, 2020. "Mixed feedback dynamics and the USA renewable fuel standard: the roles of policy design and administrative agency," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 349-369, June.
    2. Roberts, Cameron & Geels, Frank W., 2019. "Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 221-240.
    3. Sebastian Sewerin & Daniel Béland & Benjamin Cashore, 2020. "Designing policy for the long term: agency, policy feedback and policy change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 243-252, June.
    4. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    5. Nicolas Schmid & Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt & Irina Simmen, 2021. "Governing complex societal problems: The impact of private on public regulation through technological change," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 840-855, July.
    6. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    7. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    8. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    9. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.
    10. André Sorensen & Anna-Katharina Brenner, 2021. "Cities, Urban Property Systems, and Sustainability Transitions: Contested Processes of Institutional Change and the Regulation of Urban Property Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    12. Jonas Meckling, 2019. "Governing renewables: Policy feedback in a global energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(2), pages 317-338, March.
    13. Adam Hannah, 2021. "Procedural tools and pension reform in the long run: the case of Sweden [The new politics of the welfare state? A case study of extra-parliamentary party politics in Norway]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 362-378.
    14. Hamish van der Ven & Steven Bernstein & Matthew Hoffmann, 2017. "Valuing the Contributions of Nonstate and Subnational Actors to Climate Governance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, February.
    15. Caner Bakir & Sinan Akgunay & Kerem Coban, 2021. "Why does the combination of policy entrepreneur and institutional entrepreneur roles matter for the institutionalization of policy ideas?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 397-422, June.
    16. Federico Steinberg & Mattias Vermeiren, 2016. "Germany's Institutional Power and the EMU Regime after the Crisis: Towards a Germanized Euro Area?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 388-407, March.
    17. Ghimire Kanksha Mahadevia, 2018. "Path Dependence, Abnormal Times and Missed Opportunities: Case Studies of Catastrophic Natural Disasters From India and Nepal," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 31-76, January.
    18. Matthew Lockwood & Caroline Kuzemko & Catherine Mitchell & Richard Hoggett, 2017. "Historical institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: A research agenda," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 312-333, March.
    19. Matthew Lockwood, 2022. "Policy feedback and institutional context in energy transitions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 487-507, September.
    20. Travis Sharp, 2019. "Wars, presidents, and punctuated equilibriums in US defense spending," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 367-396, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:53:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-019-09366-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.