IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v40y2021i1p79-98..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

More is less: Partisan ideology, changes of government, and policy integration reforms in the UK
[“Neglected Challenges to Evidence-Based Policy-Making: The Problem of Policy Accumulation.”]

Author

Listed:
  • Martino Maggetti
  • Philipp Trein

Abstract

Researchers have argued that political parties in government matter for policy integration reforms, but the way they do so remains somewhat undetermined. In this paper, we contribute to this literature by tackling two interrelated open questions: How does the presence of different political parties in government, which rely on policy programs on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, shape the intensity of policy integration reforms? To what extent do changes in governing political parties affect the political motivation of policy integration reforms and thereby influence the goals and means of these reforms? To explore these questions, we examine a case where institutional capacity is generally favorable to such reforms. Specifically, we compare policy integration reforms in the UK under the New Labor government (1997–2010) with those passed by the Conservative governments (1979–1996), and by the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats (2010–2014). We find that political parties’ policy positions, and respectively, their political motivations, decisively shape the intensity of policy integration reforms, as well as their substantial goals and means. Furthermore, our results imply that changes in governing parties increase the overall frequency but can reduce the coherence of reform programs over time. These results point to a paradox for the governance of problems through policy integration, whereby the presence of high institutional capacity as provided by a majoritarian system can have negative long-term consequences for policies aiming to solve complex problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Martino Maggetti & Philipp Trein, 2021. "More is less: Partisan ideology, changes of government, and policy integration reforms in the UK [“Neglected Challenges to Evidence-Based Policy-Making: The Problem of Policy Accumulation.”]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(1), pages 79-98.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:40:y:2021:i:1:p:79-98.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14494035.2021.1908673
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. William Blomquist & Elinor Ostrom, 1985. "Institutional Capacity And The Resolution Of A Commons Dilemma," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 5(2), pages 383-394, November.
    2. Jale Tosun & Achim Lang, 2017. "Policy integration: mapping the different concepts," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 553-570, November.
    3. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    4. Cangiano, Alessio, 2008. "Employment support services and migrant integration in the UK labour market," HWWI Policy Papers 3-7, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    5. Bolognesi, Thomas & Nahrath, Stephane, 2020. "Environmental Governance Dynamics: Some Micro Foundations of Macro Failures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    6. Christian Adam & Yves Steinebach & Christoph Knill, 2018. "Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: the problem of policy accumulation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 269-290, September.
    7. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Cynthia L. Michel, 2017. "Addressing fragmented government action: coordination, coherence, and integration," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 745-767, December.
    8. Mackenbach, Johan P., 2010. "Has the English strategy to reduce health inequalities failed?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1249-1253, October.
    9. Häusermann, Silja & Picot, Georg & Geering, Dominik, 2013. "Review Article: Rethinking Party Politics and the Welfare State – Recent Advances in the Literature," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 221-240, January.
    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. Vélez-Ramírez, Alberto & Rivera-Castañeda, Patricia & Muñoz-Pizza, Dalia M., 2022. "Institutional capacity determinants in a global south city: the case of a wastewater utility in Zacatecas, Mexico," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    2. Francesco Sarti, 2023. "The policy integration game? Congruence of outputs and implementation in policy integration," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 141-160, March.

    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. Sébastien Lambelet, 2023. "Unintended policy integration through entrepreneurship at the implementation stage," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 161-189, March.
    2. Martino Maggetti & Philipp Trein, 2022. "Policy integration, problem-solving, and the coronavirus disease crisis: lessons for policy design [Neglected challenges to evidence-based policy-making: The problem of policy accumulation]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(1), pages 53-67.
    3. Philipp Trein & Manuel Fischer & Martino Maggetti & Francesco Sarti, 2023. "Empirical research on policy integration: a review and new directions," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 29-48, March.
    4. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Philipp Trein, 2023. "Pathways to policy integration: a subsystem approach," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 9-27, March.
    5. Thomas Bolognesi & Florence Metz & Stéphane Nahrath, 2021. "Institutional complexity traps in policy integration processes: a long-term perspective on Swiss flood risk management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 911-941, December.
    6. Martin Ferry, 2021. "Pulling things together: regional policy coordination approaches and drivers in Europe [‘PiS wchodzi w buty marszałków. Cel? Miliony z funduszy europejskich’]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(1), pages 37-57.
    7. Daniel Kefeli & Karen M. Siegel & Lucía Pittaluga & Thomas Dietz, 2023. "Environmental policy integration in a newly established natural resource-based sector: the role of advocacy coalitions and contrasting conceptions of sustainability," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 69-93, March.
    8. Alexandra Lesnikowski & James D. Ford & Robbert Biesbroek & Lea Berrang-Ford, 2019. "A policy mixes approach to conceptualizing and measuring climate change adaptation policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 447-469, October.
    9. Heiner Lüpke & Lucas Leopold & Jale Tosun, 2023. "Institutional coordination arrangements as elements of policy design spaces: insights from climate policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 49-68, March.
    10. Thomas Bolognesi & Andrea K. Gerlak & Gregory Giuliani, 2018. "Explaining and Measuring Social-Ecological Pathways: The Case of Global Changes and Water Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    11. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Philipp Trein, 2023. "Policy integration as a political process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(1), pages 3-8, March.
    12. Paul Cisneros, 2023. "How do courts contribute to policy integration? A comparative study of policy integration processes in Colombia, Ecuador, and Guatemala," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 613-632, September.
    13. Ueli Reber & Manuel Fischer & Karin Ingold & Felix Kienast & Anna M. Hersperger & Rolf Grütter & Robin Benz, 2022. "Integrating biodiversity: a longitudinal and cross-sectoral analysis of Swiss politics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 311-335, June.
    14. Guillermo M. Cejudo & Cynthia L. Michel, 2023. "Implementing policy integration: policy regimes for care policy in Chile and Uruguay," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 733-753, December.
    15. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Lyhne, Ivar & Aaen, Sara Bjørn & Nielsen, Helle & Kørnøv, Lone & Larsen, Sanne Vammen, 2018. "Citizens’ self-mobilization, motivational factors, and the group of most engaged citizens: The case of a radioactive waste repository in Denmark," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 433-442.
    17. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    18. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    19. Sunak, Yasin & Madlener, Reinhard, 2012. "The Impact of Wind Farms on Property Values: A Geographically Weighted Hedonic Pricing Model," FCN Working Papers 3/2012, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN), revised Mar 2013.
    20. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    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:oup:polsoc:v:40:y:2021:i:1:p:79-98.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    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.